ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Optimizing prompting strategies improves large language model classification of pain- and fatigue-related functional impact in childhood cancer survivors.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding how symptoms affect daily functioning is central to improving care for childhood cancer survivors. As narrative symptom reporting becomes increasingly common in survivorship care, scalable automated tools are needed to interpret these descriptions and identify their functional impact. This study evaluates how two large language models (ChatGPT-4o, Llama-3.1) perform this task across different prompt engineering strategies.
methodsWe analyzed semi-structured interviews from 30 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers, yielding 819 pain- and fatigue-related symptom narratives. Each narrative was expert-annotated for physical, social, or cognitive functional impact, serving as the reference standard. ChatGPT-4o and Llama-3.1 were evaluated using four prompting strategies: zero-shot, few-shot, step-by-step reasoning (Chain-of-Thought), and generated knowledge. Model outputs were compared with expert annotations, and performance was quantified using standard classification and discrimination metrics with resampling-based confidence intervals.
resultsHere, we show that prompting strategies based on generated knowledge and step-by-step reasoning consistently outperform zero-shot and few-shot across both models. Overall, these strategies produce the most accurate and stable classification of physical, social, and cognitive functional impact. Specifically, ChatGPT-4o achieves more balanced precision and discrimination across physical, social, and cognitive functioning, whereas Llama-3.1 demonstrates higher sensitivity but substantially lower precision, particularly for physical and social functioning.
conclusionsPrompt engineering improves how large language models interpret survivor-reported pain and fatigue. These findings support the use of carefully designed prompts to enable automated, context-aware analysis of symptom narratives, providing a scalable approach to support symptom monitoring and survivor-centered care.
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.