ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Evaluation of the accuracy of large language models in answering bone cancer-related questions.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at understanding medical terminology, parsing unstructured clinical data, and generating contextually relevant insights, emerging as transformative healthcare tools. Three leading LLMs-Deepseek, ChatGPT, and Grok-show great potential for medical education, clinical decision-making, and patient care. Bone cancer includes diverse primary and metastatic tumors, each with distinct diagnostic criteria, treatment pathways, and prognoses. Based on this guideline, this study assesses the accuracy of Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4 in addressing bone cancer-related questions. Methods: Based on the clinical guidelines for bone cancer released by the NCCN in April 2025, 52 questions related to bone cancer were developed. Researchers posed questions to Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4, and collected the data generated; each LLM was queried twice within a one-month period. The collected data were independently evaluated and scored by two bone cancer-treating specialists in accordance with the scoring criteria. Results: Among the answers to the 52 bone cancer-related questions, the probability of Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4 providing correct responses in both rounds was greater than 90%. Additionally, no correlation was observed between the LLMs' scores, word count, and response times. The total scores of Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4 were 3.75 ± 0.71, 3.81 ± 0.6, and 0.87 ± 0.51, respectively. The word count of responses from Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4 was 546.56 ± 194.49, 367.02 ± 273.18, and 194.16 ± 197.07 words, respectively. The response times of Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4 were 11.83 ± 3.41 s, 1.52 ± 0.52 s and 42.48 ± 26.89 s, respectively. No statistically significant differences in scores were found for any of the LLMs between the two rounds. However, ChatGPT 5 showed a statistically significant difference in word count between the two rounds (360.12 ± 279.89 vs. 373.94 ± 268.86 words). Conclusion: When answering bone cancer-related questions, Deepseek V3.1, ChatGPT 5, and Grok 4 generally performed well. Specifically, when responding to questions about Ewing sarcoma, ChatGPT 5 and Grok 4 demonstrated higher accuracy than Deepseek V3.1. While each model has its own strengths and limitations, their collective potential to enhance medical knowledge and improve healthcare outcomes is undeniable.
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.