ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
AI for evidence-based treatment recommendation in oncology: a blinded evaluation of large language models and agentic workflows.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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.
- What Platform Scores Miss: Multidimensional Evaluation of AI Teaching Agents in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Role prompting modulates linguistic style but not clinical decision structure in GPT-5 tumour board simulation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Molecular Insights and Computational Modeling of Multiple Myeloma and Osteosarcoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical evaluation of large language model recommendations in melanoma: comparison with multidisciplinary tumor board decisions in a real-world cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based medicine is crucial for clinical decision-making, yet studies suggest that a significant proportion of treatment decisions do not fully incorporate the latest evidence. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in bridging this gap, but their reliability for medical recommendations remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted an evaluation study comparing five LLMs' recommendations across 50 clinical scenarios related to multiple myeloma diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management, using a unified evidence cutoff of June 2024. The evaluation included three general-purpose LLMs (OpenAI o1-preview, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro), one retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system (Myelo), and one agentic workflow-based system (HopeAI). General-purpose LLMs generated responses based solely on their internal knowledge, while the RAG system enhanced these capabilities by incorporating external knowledge retrieval. The agentic workflow system extended the RAG approach by implementing multi-step reasoning and coordinating with multiple tools and external systems for complex task execution. Three independent hematologist-oncologists evaluated the LLM-generated responses using standardized scoring criteria developed specifically for this study. Performance assessment encompassed five dimensions: accuracy, relevance, comprehensiveness, hallucination rate, and clinical use readiness. Results: HopeAI demonstrated superior performance across accuracy (82.0%), relevance (85.3%), and comprehensiveness (74.0%), compared to OpenAI o1-preview (64.7, 57.3, 36.0%), Claude 3.5 Sonnet (50.0, 51.3, 29.3%), Gemini 1.5 Pro (48.0, 46.0, 30.0%), and Myelo (58.7, 56, 32.7%). Hallucination rates were consistently low across all systems: HopeAI (5.3%), OpenAI o1-preview (3.3%), Claude 3.5 Sonnet (10.0%), Gemini 1.5 Pro (8.0%), and Myelo (5.3%). Clinical use readiness scores were relatively low for all systems: HopeAI (25.3%), OpenAI o1-preview (6.0%), Claude 3.5 Sonnet (2.7%), Gemini 1.5 Pro (4.0%), and Myelo (4.0%). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that while current LLMs show promise in medical decision support, their recommendations require careful clinical supervision to ensure patient safety and optimal care. Further research is needed to improve their clinical use readiness before integration into oncology workflows. These findings provide valuable insights into the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in oncology, guiding future research and development efforts toward integrating AI into clinical workflows.
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.