ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Assessing the clinical applicability of large language models for microwave ablation guidance.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of five language models (LLMs)-ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta, Claude, and DeepSeek-in providing clinically relevant advice on microwave ablation (MWA), a minimally invasive therapy for tumor treatment. Methods: A total of 27 standardized questions covering seven thematic domains of MWA were presented to each LLM using a single-input approach. Responses were independently evaluated by three senior radiologists using three customized 4-point rating scales: Overall Quality Score (OQS), Understandability Score (US), and Implementability Score (IS). The mean of these metrics was calculated as the Mean Quality Score (MQS). Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: 540 ratings were performed. All LLMs successfully generated relevant responses. ChatGPT achieved the highest MQS (3.65 ± 0.54), outperforming Claude (3.47 ± 0.59) and DeepSeek (3.47 ± 0.60), while Gemini (3.00 ± 0.55) and Meta (2.95 ± 0.61) scored significantly lower (p < 0.05). ChatGPT also ranked highest across all subcategories, particularly in Effectiveness and Outcomes (3.73 ± 0.44), Risks and Complications (3.89 ± 0.32), and Post-Procedure Care (3.89 ± 0.32). Interrater reliability was moderate to good (ICC = 0.56-0.75), confirming consistent evaluation. Conclusion: All examined LLMs demonstrated the ability to provide meaningful advice on MWA. However, ChatGPT showed the best overall accuracy, clarity, and clinical applicability. Claude and DeepSeek achieved comparable results in specific areas. While these findings highlight the promising potential of LLMs in supporting clinical decision-making, human oversight and domain-specific validation remain essential.
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.