ArticleThe world journal of men's health2025
The In-depth Comparative Analysis of Four Large Language AI Models for Risk Assessment and Information Retrieval from Multi-Modality Prostate Cancer Work-up Reports.
Article in The world journal of men's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and Readability Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Medical Information Related to Prostate Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study of ChatGPT and DeepSeek.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Commercial large language models for oral cavity cancer staging using descriptive pre-treatment MRI reports: ready for standalone use in clinical practice?Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- LLM-powered prostate cancer staging from PSMA-PET/CT reports using PROMISE v2.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Can chatGPT-4o reliably standardize PSMA PET/CT and PET/MRI reports using PROMISE V2 criteria? - An exploratory study.EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications for Automated Data Extraction and Secondary Use of Clinical Information in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Insufficient reporting quality in large language model studies in the field of radiology.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInformation retrieval (IR) and risk assessment (RA) from multi-modality imaging and pathology reports are critical to prostate cancer (PC) treatment. This study aims to evaluate the performance of four general-purpose large language model (LLMs) in IR and RA tasks. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a study using simulated text reports from computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scans, and biopsy pathology on stage IV PC patients. We assessed four LLMs (ChatGPT-4-turbo, Claude-3-opus, Gemini-Pro-1.0, ChatGPT-3.5-turbo) on three RA tasks (LATITUDE, CHAARTED, TwNHI) and seven IR tasks. It included TNM staging, and the detection and quantification of bone and visceral metastases, providing a broad evaluation of their capabilities in handling diverse clinical data. We queried LLMs with multi-modality reports using zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting via application programming interface. With three adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard, these models' performances were assessed through repeated single-round queries and ensemble voting methods, using 6 outcome metrics.
resultsAmong 350 stage IV PC patients with simulated reports, 115 (32.9%), 128 (36.6%), and 94 (26.9%) belonged to LATITUDE, CHAARTED, and TwNHI high-risk, respectively. Ensemble voting, based on three repeated single-round queries, consistently enhances accuracy with a higher likelihood of achieving non-inferior results compared to a single query. Four models showed minimal differences in IR tasks with high accuracy (87.4%-94.2%) and consistency (ICC>0.8) in TNM staging. However, there were significant differences in RA performance, with the ranking as follows: ChatGPT-4-turbo, Claude-3-opus, Gemini-Pro-1.0, and ChatGPT-3.5-turbo, respectively. ChatGPT-4-turbo achieved the highest accuracy (90.1%, 90.7%,91.6%), and consistency (ICC 0.86, 0.93, 0.76) across 3 RA tasks.
conclusionsChatGPT-4-turbo demonstrated satisfactory accuracy and outcomes in RA and IR for stage IV PC, suggesting its potential for clinical decision support. However, the risks of misinterpretation impacting decision-making cannot be overlooked. Further research is necessary to validate these findings in other cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.