Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39743220›Full record

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.

Lun-Hsiang Yuan, Shi-Wei Huang, Dean Chou, Chung-You Tsai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. LLM-powered prostate cancer staging from PSMA-PET/CT reports using PROMISE v2.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lun-Hsiang Yuan *Department of Biomedical Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1302-2239
Shi-Wei Huang *Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Yunlin Branch, Yunlin, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9777-8561
Dean ChouDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9533-1918
Chung-You TsaiDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0527-1830

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChatGPTclinicalDecision support systemsInformation storage and retrievalLarge language modelProstatic neoplasmsRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID39743220
PMCPMC12505481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.