ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Large language models for pretreatment education in pediatric radiation oncology: A comparative evaluation study.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Leveraging ChatGPT to strengthen pediatric healthcare systems: a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the capability of large language models in answering pediatric critical care board-style questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Intelligent Support for Radiotherapy: A Review of Clinical Applications for Large Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Assessing the Capability of Large Language Models in Answering Pediatric Critical Care Board-Style Questions.Research square · 2025Article
- Article
- 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 · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.