ArticleDigital health
Global trends and emerging frontiers of large language models in cancer research.
Article in Digital health. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into cancer research has progressed rapidly, but a comprehensive understanding of global trends, key contributors, and emerging research areas remains lacking. This gap hinders a comprehensive understanding of the development landscape for LLM applications in clinical oncology. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using publications retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection on March 15, 2026. Eligible studies were limited to English-language articles and reviews published till 2025. Records unrelated to LLMs or cancer, duplicates, retracted publications, and those missing complete metadata were excluded. A total of 896 publications were analyzed using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched with the same term, obtaining 29 eligible trials. Results: Publication output increased sharply from 2022 to 2025. The USA and China dominated global output, with Germany demonstrating disproportionate citation efficiency relative to volume, and Heidelberg University and Harvard University leading institutionally. Research hotspots converged on LLM benchmarking, domain-specific fine-tuning, multi-omics integration, and perioperative applications. Among 29 registered trials, application areas spanned patient communication, shared decision-making, and care equity outcomes, reflecting a transition from proof-of-concept toward randomized evaluation. Conclusions: LLM-driven oncology research has expanded rapidly but remains geographically and institutionally concentrated, with prospective multicenter validation still scarce. Research is transitioning from foundational benchmarking toward fine-tuning, multimodal integration, and clinical deployment. Strengthening cross-institutional collaboration, diversifying trial populations, and developing standardized safety evaluation frameworks are essential for translating bibliometric growth into meaningful advances in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcomes.
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.