Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40285677›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2025

Medical accuracy of artificial intelligence chatbots in oncology: a scoping review.

David Chen, Kate Avison, Saif Alnassar, Ryan S Huang, Srinivas Raman

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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.

NCT07261059 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Artificial Intelligence-assisted Integrated Care to Promote Colonoscopy Uptake in China: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFudan UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled400ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms, ColonoscopyArmsAI-assisted integrated care
NCT07612436 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

AI-empowered Nudge to Improve Colonoscopy Uptake (AINC): A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFudan UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled1,680ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms, ColonoscopyArmsAI-empowered nudge (AINC) strategy, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

David ChenPrincess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Kate AvisonPrincess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Saif AlnassarPrincess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Ryan S HuangPrincess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Srinivas RamanPrincess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5688-9628

Funding

Robert L. Tundermann and Christine E. Couturier
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in large language models (LLM) have enabled human-like qualities of natural language competency. Applied to oncology, LLMs have been proposed to serve as an information resource and interpret vast amounts of data as a clinical decision-support tool to improve clinical outcomes.

objectiveThis review aims to describe the current status of medical accuracy of oncology-related LLM applications and research trends for further areas of investigation.

methodsA scoping literature search was conducted on Ovid Medline for peer-reviewed studies published since 2000. We included primary research studies that evaluated the medical accuracy of a large language model applied in oncology settings. Study characteristics and primary outcomes of included studies were extracted to describe the landscape of oncology-related LLMs.

resultsSixty studies were included based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of studies evaluated LLMs in oncology as a health information resource in question-answer style examinations (48%), followed by diagnosis (20%) and management (17%). The number of studies that evaluated the utility of fine-tuning and prompt-engineering LLMs increased over time from 2022 to 2024. Studies reported the advantages of LLMs as an accurate information resource, reduction of clinician workload, and improved accessibility and readability of clinical information, while noting disadvantages such as poor reliability, hallucinations, and need for clinician oversight. DISCUSSION: There exists significant interest in the application of LLMs in clinical oncology, with a particular focus as a medical information resource and clinical decision support tool. However, further research is needed to validate these tools in external hold-out datasets for generalizability and to improve medical accuracy across diverse clinical scenarios, underscoring the need for clinician supervision of these tools.

Indexed as

Generative Artificial IntelligenceLarge Language ModelsMedical OncologyNeoplasmsHumansartificial intelligencechatbotclinical decision supportmedical accuracy

Identifiers

PMID40285677
PMCPMC12032582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.