Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39867725›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025

Large language models for pretreatment education in pediatric radiation oncology: A comparative evaluation study.

Dominik Wawrzuta, Aleksandra Napieralska, Katarzyna Ludwikowska, Laimonas Jaruševičius, Anastasija Trofimoviča-Krasnorucka, Gints Rausis, Agata Szulc, Katarzyna Pędziwiatr, Kateřina Poláchová, Justyna Klejdysz and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Accuracy And Clinical Relevance of Chat GPT-4 in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Research.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2025
    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

11 authors.

Dominik WawrzutaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wawelska 15B, 02-034 Warsaw, Poland.
Aleksandra NapieralskaRadiotherapy Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland.
Katarzyna LudwikowskaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wawelska 15B, 02-034 Warsaw, Poland.
Laimonas JaruševičiusOncology Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, A. Mickevičiaus g. 9, LT-44307, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Anastasija Trofimoviča-KrasnoruckaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Riga East University Hospital, Hipokrāta iela 2, LV-1038 Riga, Latvia.
Gints RausisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Riga East University Hospital, Hipokrāta iela 2, LV-1038 Riga, Latvia.
Agata SzulcDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Lower Silesian Center of Oncology, Pulmonology and Hematology, Hirszfelda 12, 53-413 Wroclaw, Poland.
Katarzyna PędziwiatrDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wawelska 15B, 02-034 Warsaw, Poland.
Kateřina PoláchováDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Žlutý kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic.
Justyna KlejdyszDepartment of Economics, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU), Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany.
Marzanna ChojnackaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wawelska 15B, 02-034 Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Pediatric radiotherapy patients and their parents are usually aware of their need for radiotherapy early on, but they meet with a radiation oncologist later in their treatment. Consequently, they search for information online, often encountering unreliable sources. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to serve as an educational pretreatment tool, providing reliable answers to their questions. We aimed to evaluate the responses provided by generative pre-trained transformers (GPT), the most popular subgroup of LLMs, to questions about pediatric radiation oncology. Materials and methods: We collected pretreatment questions regarding radiotherapy from patients and parents. Responses were generated using GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and fine-tuned GPT-3.5, with fine-tuning based on pediatric radiotherapy guides from various institutions. Additionally, a radiation oncologist prepared answers to these questions. Finally, a multi-institutional group of nine pediatric radiotherapy experts conducted a blind review of responses, assessing reliability, concision, and comprehensibility. Results: The radiation oncologist and GPT-4 provided the highest-quality responses, though GPT-4's answers were often excessively verbose. While fine-tuned GPT-3.5 generally outperformed basic GPT-3.5, it often provided overly simplistic answers. Inadequate responses were rare, occurring in 4% of GPT-generated responses across all models, primarily due to GPT-3.5 generating excessively long responses. Conclusions: LLMs can be valuable tools for educating patients and their families before treatment in pediatric radiation oncology. Among them, only GPT-4 provides information of a quality comparable to that of a radiation oncologist, although it still occasionally generates poor-quality responses. GPT-3.5 models should be used cautiously, as they are more likely to produce inadequate answers to patient questions.

Identifiers

PMID39867725
PMCPMC11762905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.