Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646097›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024

Superhuman performance on urology board questions using an explainable language model enhanced with European Association of Urology guidelines.

M J Hetz, N Carl, S Haggenmüller, C Wies, J N Kather, M S Michel, F Wessels, T J Brinker

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Evaluating AI proficiency in nuclear cardiology: Large language models take on the board preparation exam.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

M J HetzDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg.
N CarlDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg.
S HaggenmüllerDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg.
C WiesDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg.
J N KatherElse Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden.
M S MichelDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Mannheim.
F WesselsDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Mannheim.
T J BrinkerDigital Biomarkers for Oncology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models encode clinical knowledge and can answer medical expert questions out-of-the-box without further training. However, this zero-shot performance is limited by outdated training data and lack of explainability impeding clinical translation. We aimed to develop a urology-specialized chatbot (UroBot) and evaluate it against state-of-the-art models as well as historical urologists' performance in answering urological board questions in a fully clinician-verifiable manner. Materials and methods: We developed UroBot, a software pipeline based on the GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o models by OpenAI, utilizing retrieval augmented generation and the 2023 European Association of Urology guidelines. UroBot was benchmarked against the zero-shot performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o, and Uro_Chat. The evaluation involved 10 runs with 200 European Board of Urology in-service assessment questions, with the performance measured by the mean rate of correct answers (RoCA). Results: UroBot-4o achieved the highest RoCA, with an average of 88.4%, outperforming GPT-4o (77.6%) by 10.8%. Besides, it is clinician-verifiable and demonstrated the highest level of agreement between runs as measured by Fleiss' kappa (κ = 0.979). In comparison, the average performance of urologists on urological board questions is 68.7% as reported by the literature. Conclusions: UroBot is a clinician-verifiable and accurate software pipeline and outperforms published models and urologists in answering urology board questions. We provide code and instructions to use and extend UroBot for further development.

Indexed as

evidence-based urologylarge language modelsretrieval augmented generation

Identifiers

PMID41646097
PMCPMC12836625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.