ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Comparative performance evaluation of large language models in answering esophageal cancer-related questions: a multi-model assessment study.
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 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.
- Benchmarking clinical knowledge and multi-modal reasoning of large language models in liver cirrhosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploratory study of large language models in surgical decision-making for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter analysis based on multisource clinical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Automated Tumor and Node Staging from Esophageal Cancer Endoscopic Ultrasound Reports: A Benchmark of Advanced Reasoning Models with Prompt Engineering and Cross-Lingual Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A comparative study of four large language models in treatment decision-making for Hip impingement syndrome based on real-world data.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
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
Background: Esophageal cancer has high incidence and mortality rates, leading to increased public demand for accurate information. However, the reliability of online medical information is often questionable. This study systematically compared the accuracy, completeness, and comprehensibility of mainstream large language models (LLMs) in answering esophageal cancer-related questions. Methods: In total, 65 questions covering fundamental knowledge, preoperative preparation, surgical treatment, and postoperative management were selected. Each model, namely, ChatGPT 5, Claude Sonnet 4.0, DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Grok-4, was queried independently using standardized prompts. Five senior clinical experts, including three thoracic surgeons, one radiologist, and one medical oncologist, evaluated the responses using a five-point Likert scale. A retesting mechanism was applied for the low-scoring responses, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess the rating consistency. The statistical analyses were conducted using the Friedman test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Bonferroni correction. Results: All the models performed well, with average scores exceeding 4.0. However, the following significant differences emerged: Gemini excelled in accuracy, while ChatGPT led in completeness, particularly in surgical and postoperative contexts. Minor differences appeared in fundamental knowledge, but notable disparities were found in complex areas. Retesting showed improvements in overall quality, yet some responses showed decreased completeness and relevance. Conclusion: Large language models have considerable potential in answering questions about esophageal cancer, with significant differences in completeness. ChatGPT is more comprehensive in complex scenarios, while Gemini excels in accuracy. This study offers guidance for selecting artificial intelligence tools in clinical settings, advocating for a tiered application strategy tailored to specific scenarios and highlighting the importance of user education to understand the limitations and applicability of LLMs.
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.