ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Augmenting patient safety surveillance in radiation oncology with large language model-based root cause analysis: A proof-of-concept study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the potential utility of large language models (LLMs) in supporting patient safety efforts. Specifically, we evaluated the reasoning capabilities of LLMs in performing root cause analysis (RCA) of radiation oncology incidents using narrative reports from the Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). We prompted four state-of-the-art LLMs, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, o3, and Grok 3, with the "Background and Incident Overview" sections from 19 publicly available RO-ILS cases. Each model was instructed to perform RCA and generate root causes, lessons learned, and suggested actions using a standardized prompt based on AAPM RCA guidelines. Model outputs were evaluated using a combination of objective semantic similarity metrics (cosine similarity via Sentence Transformer), semi-subjective assessments (precision, recall, F1-score, expert-adjudicated PPV (Positive Predictive Value), hallucination rate and performance criteria including relevance, comprehensiveness, quality of justification and quality of solution), and subjective ratings (reasoning quality and overall performance) by five board-certified medical physicists. LLMs demonstrated satisfactory performance across evaluation metrics. All models exhibited some degree of hallucination, ranging from 11% to 61%. All the evaluated LLMs demonstrated comparable baseline capabilities in objective causal extraction, and Gemini 2.5 Pro exhibited the highest overall performance score among 4 models. Statistically significant differences were observed among models in expert-adjudicated PPV, hallucination rate, and subjective ratings (p < 0.05). LLMs delivered promising results as assistive tools for RCA in radiation oncology, with the ability to generate relevant and accurate analyses aligned with expert expectations. LLMs may support incident analysis and contribute to quality improvement efforts to advance patient safety in clinical radiation oncology practice.
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.