ArticleEndocrine2025
Enhancing patient-centered care with AI: a study of responses to neuroendocrine neoplasms queries.
Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ARTEMIS: a pilot study comparing AI-based and expert therapeutic decisions in simulated clinical cases of neuroendocrine neoplasms.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- From diagnosis to treatment: navigating the course for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Attribute Preferences for Somatostatin Analogues in Neuroendocrine Tumours (NETs) Among Patients, Clinicians and Nurses in Australia.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Blinded evaluation of GPT-4 and physician responses to patient inquiries across multiple specialties.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLarge Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in oncology, but their application in neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is still unexplored.
aimTo evaluate the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of LLM responses to clinically relevant NEN management questions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA study was conducted from October to December 2024, during which a team of experts posed nine key NEN management questions to three LLMs: ChatGPT Plus, Microsoft Copilot, and Perplexity. Responses were assessed by 22 expert physicians across specialties using a 5-point Likert scale based on scientific accuracy, clarity, and completeness, and additionally evaluated by 24 NEN patients for clarity and relevance. Primary outcomes included LLM performance across evaluation criteria and factors influencing ratings, analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.
resultsChatGPT Plus scored highest (M = 3.72, SE = 0.19), followed by Copilot (M = 3.54, SE = 0.19) and Perplexity (M = 3.22, SE = 0.19), with clarity rating the highest. The chemotherapy indications question received the lowest scores, underscoring LLM challenges in handling complex clinical decisions. DISCUSSION: This study highlights LLMs' potential in NEN management as informative tools with clear but variably accurate responses. Continuous improvement and clinician oversight are essential for their successful integration into patient communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40471488What 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.