ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2025
Patient- and clinician-based evaluation of large language models for patient education in prostate cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping patients' and professionals' perceptions of artificial intelligence in radiotherapy: a scoping review.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Review
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Evaluating large language models for orthodontic consultation in patients with periodontitis: a study of reliability, quality, and readability.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- AI-driven precision diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- A locally deployed large language model for pathology-informed and nurse-reviewed communication support in bladder cancer immunotherapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's Educational Potential in Lung Cancer Radiotherapy From Clinician and Patient Perspectives: Content Quality and Readability Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- How Accurate Is AI? A Critical Evaluation of Commonly Used Large Language Models in Responding to Patient Concerns About Incidental Kidney Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Large language model integrations in cancer decision-making: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- How Well Do Different AI Language Models Inform Patients About Radiofrequency Ablation for Varicose Veins?Cureus · 2025Article
- Benchmarking GPT-5 in radiation oncology: measurable gains, but persistent need for expert oversight.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the capabilities and limitations of large language models (LLMs) for providing patient education for men undergoing radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, incorporating assessments from both clinicians and patients.
methodsSix questions about definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer were designed based on common patient inquiries. These questions were presented to different LLMs [ChatGPT‑4, ChatGPT-4o (both OpenAI Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA), Gemini (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), Copilot (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA), and Claude (Anthropic PBC, San Francisco, CA, USA)] via the respective web interfaces. Responses were evaluated for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Index. Five radiation oncologists assessed the responses for relevance, correctness, and completeness using a five-point Likert scale. Additionally, 35 prostate cancer patients evaluated the responses from ChatGPT‑4 for comprehensibility, accuracy, relevance, trustworthiness, and overall informativeness.
resultsThe Flesch Reading Ease Index indicated that the responses from all LLMs were relatively difficult to understand. All LLMs provided answers that clinicians found to be generally relevant and correct. The answers from ChatGPT‑4, ChatGPT-4o, and Claude AI were also found to be complete. However, we found significant differences between the performance of different LLMs regarding relevance and completeness. Some answers lacked detail or contained inaccuracies. Patients perceived the information as easy to understand and relevant, with most expressing confidence in the information and a willingness to use ChatGPT‑4 for future medical questions. ChatGPT-4's responses helped patients feel better informed, despite the initially standardized information provided.
conclusionOverall, LLMs show promise as a tool for patient education in prostate cancer radiotherapy. While improvements are needed in terms of accuracy and readability, positive feedback from clinicians and patients suggests that LLMs can enhance patient understanding and engagement. Further research is essential to fully realize the potential of artificial intelligence in patient education.
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.