ReviewTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Generative AI for patient education in cancer care: A scoping review of evaluation practices and emerging trends.
Review in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality, transparency, and readability of AI chatbot responses for patient counseling in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection: a cross-sectional evaluation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Who Is Responsible When AI Gets Cancer Information Wrong? Implications for Patient Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative AI (GenAI) tools, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), are increasingly used across clinical contexts; including to support patient information needs. As these technologies become more prevalent, understanding their utilisation and evaluation in practice is critical. This scoping review aimed to map existing literature on GenAI applications in education for patients with cancer and identify trends in evaluation practices. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed and Medline databases were searched for studies published between January 2019 and November 2024. Fifty-four eligible articles were analysed for GenAI models used, treatment modalities, education contexts, prompt sources, and evaluation domains and metrics. Results: Most studies (81.5 %) were published in 2024, with over half (55.6 %) originating from the USA. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 were the most frequently used models. Decision-making and general disease information were the predominant education contexts. Evaluation of GenAI outputs was reported in 96 % of studies, with accuracy (61.1%), readability (42.6 %), and quality (29.6 %) as the most common domains. More than half (50.8 %) of evaluation metrics were custom scales, indicating limited use of standardised tools. Patient-centred frameworks were rarely applied. Conclusion: GenAI shows promise in enhancing patient education for cancer care, but evaluation practices lack standardisation and cultural responsiveness. Future research should prioritise validated frameworks, patient-centred metrics, and prompt engineering strategies to ensure safe, equitable and effective integration of GenAI in clinical care.
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.