ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Evaluating large language models as an educational tool for meningioma patients: patient and clinician perspectives.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the delivery of radiotherapy with artificial intelligence.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Leveraging large language models to populate structured clinical case report forms from unstructured medical notes in radiation oncology.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Intelligent Support for Radiotherapy: A Review of Clinical Applications for Large Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Large language models in patient education for brain tumors: opportunities, risks, and ethical considerations.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Temporal evolution of large language models (LLMs) in oncology.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- CHAT-RT study: ChatGPT in radiation oncology-a survey on usage, perception, and impact among DEGRO members.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study explores the potential of ChatGPT, an advanced large language model (LLM) by OpenAI, in educating patients about meningioma, a common type of brain tumor. While ChatGPT has generated significant debate regarding its utility and ethics, its growing popularity suggests that patients may increasingly use such tools for medical information. The study specifically examines how patients who have undergone radiation therapy for meningioma perceive the information generated by ChatGPT, integrating both patient feedback and clinical assessment.
methodsEight meningioma-related questions on diagnosis, treatment options, and radiation therapy were posed to ChatGPT 4. A questionnaire with these responses and feedback items was developed to assess utility, accuracy, clarity, and alignment with patients' experiences. Nine clinicians first rated each response's relevance, correctness, and completeness on a five-point Likert scale. Subsequently, 28 patients with meningioma completed the questionnaire during their first follow-up visit (three months post-radiation therapy). Finally, the same questions were presented to three other large language models (ChatGPT 4o mini, Gemini Free, Gemini Advanced), and seven blinded clinicians rated each model's responses before selecting the most accurate, eloquent, and comprehensive overall.
resultsThe study cohort included 28 meningioma patients, mostly female, with a median age of 60 years. Most patients found the information clear, accurate, and reflective of their experiences, with 60% willing to use ChatGPT for future inquiries. Clinicians rated the relevance and correctness of the information highly, although completeness was rated slightly lower, particularly for questions about specific radiation therapy details and side effects. ChatGPT 4 and its newer version ChatGPT 4o mini received the highest, nearly identical scores among the four LLMs evaluated, while Gemini Free scored the lowest in clinician assessments.
conclusionsChatGPT demonstrates potential as a supplementary educational tool for meningioma patients, though some areas may require improvement, particularly in providing comprehensive information. The study highlights the potential for integrating AI in patient education, while also noting the need for clinical oversight to ensure accuracy and completeness.
trial registrationLMU ethics vote nr.: 23-0742.
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.