ArticleMethods of information in medicine2024
Leveraging Guideline-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems with Large Language Models: A Case Study with Breast Cancer.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of artificial intelligence in precision medicine for breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) have been established in most countries to allow experts collaboratively determine the best treatment decisions for cancer patients. However, MTBs often face challenges such as case overload, which can compromise MTB decision quality. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been introduced to assist clinicians in this process. Despite their potential, CDSSs are still underutilized in routine practice. The emergence of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, offers new opportunities to improve the efficiency and usability of traditional CDSSs.
objectivesOncoDoc2 is a guideline-based CDSS developed using a documentary approach and applied to breast cancer management. This study aims to evaluate the potential of LLMs, used as question-answering (QA) systems, to improve the usability of OncoDoc2 across different prompt engineering techniques (PETs).
methodsData extracted from breast cancer patient summaries (BCPSs), together with questions formulated by OncoDoc2, were used to create prompts for various LLMs, and several PETs were designed and tested. Using a sample of 200 randomized BCPSs, LLMs and PETs were initially compared with regard to their responses to OncoDoc2 questions using classic metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score). Best performing LLMs and PETs were further assessed by comparing the therapeutic recommendations generated by OncoDoc2, based on LLM inputs, to those provided by MTB clinicians using OncoDoc2. Finally, the best performing method was validated using a new sample of 30 randomized BCPSs.
resultsThe combination of Mistral and OpenChat models under the enhanced Zero-Shot PET showed the best performance as a question-answering system. This approach gets a precision of 60.16%, a recall of 54.18%, an F1 score of 56.59%, and an accuracy of 75.57% on the validation set of 30 BCPSs. However, this approach yielded poor results as a CDSS, with only 16.67% of the recommendations generated by OncoDoc2 based on LLM inputs matching the gold standard.
conclusionAll the criteria in the OncoDoc2 decision tree are crucial for capturing the uniqueness of each patient. Any deviation from a criterion alters the recommendations generated. Despite achieving a good accuracy rate of 75.57%, LLMs still face challenges in reliably understanding complex medical contexts and be effective as CDSSs.
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.