Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39776222›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2025

Can Large Language Models Aid Caregivers of Pediatric Cancer Patients in Information Seeking? A Cross-Sectional Investigation.

Emre Sezgin, Daniel I Jackson, A Baki Kocaballi, Mindy Bibart, Sue Zupanec, Wendy Landier, Anthony Audino, Mark Ranalli, Micah Skeens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Pediatric Oncology Knowledge Mobilization in Canada: A Environmental Scan.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

9 authors.

Emre SezginThe Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8798-9605
Daniel I JacksonThe Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4751-1063
A Baki KocaballiCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Mindy BibartDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Sue ZupanecHematology/Oncology Department, Hospital for Sick Children (Sick Kids), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wendy LandierInstitute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Anthony AudinoThe Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Mark RanalliThe Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Micah SkeensThe Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6786-8128

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCaregivers in pediatric oncology need accurate and understandable information about their child's condition, treatment, and side effects. This study assesses the performance of publicly accessible large language model (LLM)-supported tools in providing valuable and reliable information to caregivers of children with cancer.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the performance of the four LLM-supported tools-ChatGPT (GPT-4), Google Bard (Gemini Pro), Microsoft Bing Chat, and Google SGE-against a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) derived from the Children's Oncology Group Family Handbook and expert input (In total, 26 FAQs and 104 generated responses). Five pediatric oncology experts assessed the generated LLM responses using measures including accuracy, clarity, inclusivity, completeness, clinical utility, and overall rating. Additionally, the content quality was evaluated including readability, AI disclosure, source credibility, resource matching, and content originality. We used descriptive analysis and statistical tests including Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Kruskal-Wallis H-tests, and Dunn's post hoc tests for pairwise comparisons.

resultsChatGPT shows high overall performance when evaluated by the experts. Bard also performed well, especially in accuracy and clarity of the responses, whereas Bing Chat and Google SGE had lower overall scores. Regarding the disclosure of responses being generated by AI, it was observed less frequently in ChatGPT responses, which may have affected the clarity of responses, whereas Bard maintained a balance between AI disclosure and response clarity. Google SGE generated the most readable responses whereas ChatGPT answered with the most complexity. LLM tools varied significantly (p < 0.001) across all expert evaluations except inclusivity. Through our thematic analysis of expert free-text comments, emotional tone and empathy emerged as a unique theme with mixed feedback on expectations from AI to be empathetic.

conclusionLLM-supported tools can enhance caregivers' knowledge of pediatric oncology. Each model has unique strengths and areas for improvement, indicating the need for careful selection based on specific clinical contexts. Further research is required to explore their application in other medical specialties and patient demographics, assessing broader applicability and long-term impacts.

Indexed as

CaregiversNeoplasmsChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorLanguageMaleartificial intelligencehealth care communicationhealth literacylarge language modelspatient educationpediatric oncology

Identifiers

PMID39776222
PMCPMC11705392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.