ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT-4o Oncology Expert in Comparison to Standard Medical Oncology Knowledge: A Focus on Treatment-Related Clinical Questions.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in Addressing Complex Clinical Questions Based on NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Clinical Competence of Large Language Models in Prostate Cancer Management: A Comparative Study of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into oncology can revolutionize decision-making by providing accurate information. This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) Oncology Expert, in addressing open-ended clinical oncology questions. Thirty-seven treatment-related questions on solid organ tumors were selected from a hematology-oncology textbook. Responses from ChatGPT-4o Oncology Expert and the textbook were anonymized and independently evaluated by two medical oncologists using a structured scoring system focused on accuracy and clinical justification. Statistical analysis, including paired t-tests, was conducted to compare scores, and interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa. Oncology Expert achieved a significantly higher average score of 7.83 compared to the textbook's 7.0 (p < 0.01). In 10 cases, Oncology Expert provided more accurate and updated answers, demonstrating its ability to integrate recent medical knowledge. In 26 cases, both sources provided equally relevant answers, but the Oncology Expert's responses were clearer and easier to understand. Cohen's Kappa indicated almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.93). Both sources included outdated information for bladder cancer treatment, underscoring the need for regular updates. ChatGPT-4o Oncology Expert shows significant potential as a clinical tool in oncology by offering precise, up-to-date, and user-friendly responses. It could transform oncology practice by enhancing decision-making efficiency, improving educational tools, and serving as a reliable adjunct to clinical workflows. However, its integration requires regular updates, expert validation, and a collaborative approach to ensure reliability and relevance in the rapidly evolving field of oncology.
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.