ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Summarizing clinical evidence utilizing large language models for cancer treatments: a blinded comparative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Large language models for breast cancer treatment planning: a blinded real-world evaluation of DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and oncologist recommendations.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Concise synopses of clinical evidence support treatment decision-making but are time-consuming to curate. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential but they may provide inaccurate information. We objectively assessed the abilities of four commercially available LLMs to generate synopses for six treatment regimens in multiple myeloma and amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Methods: We compared the performance of four LLMs: Claude 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0; Gemini 1.0 and Llama-3.1. Each LLM was prompted to write synopses for six regimens. Two hematologists independently assessed accuracy, completeness, relevance, clarity, coherence, and hallucinations using Likert scales. Mean scores with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated across all domains and inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Cohen's quadratic weighted kappa. Results: Claude demonstrated the highest performance in all domains, outperforming the other LLMs in accuracy: mean Likert score 3.92 (95% CI 3.54-4.29); ChatGPT 3.25 (2.76-3.74); Gemini 3.17 (2.54-3.80); Llama 1.92 (1.41-2.43);completeness: mean Likert score 4.00 (3.66-4.34); GPT 2.58 (2.02-3.15); Gemini 2.58 (2.02-3.15); Llama 1.67 (1.39-1.95); and extentofhallucinations: mean Likert score 4.00 (4.00-4.00); ChatGPT 2.75 (2.06-3.44); Gemini 3.25 (2.65-3.85); Llama 1.92 (1.26-2.57). Llama performed considerably poorer across all the studied domains. ChatGPT and Gemini had intermediate performance. Notably, none of the LLMs registered perfect accuracy, completeness, or relevance. Conclusion: Claude performed at a consistently higher level than other LLMs, all tested LLMs required careful editing from a domain expert to become usable. More time will be needed to determine the suitability of LLMsto independently generate clinical synopses.
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.