Evaluating the Efficacy of Large Language Models in Addressing Patient-Centric Inquiries in Multiple Cancers
Borhani, S.; Jiang, X.
Show abstract
BackgroundLarge Language Models (LLMs) have transformed how patients access health information online. Chatbots like ChatGPT allow users to ask direct questions and receive tailored answers almost instantly. However, for LLMs to be effective, the answers they provide must be reliable and accessible to patients. Our review assessed the reliability and accessibility of LLMs in answering patient inquiries about breast, prostate, and lung cancer. MethodsA systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted. Included studies were peer-reviewed original research, published in English, that evaluated one or more LLMs in answering patients oncology questions. To enable result aggregation, a linear transformation was applied to standardize data from studies that used different Likert scales. ResultsWe identified three common measures of reliability (accuracy, quality, consistency), and three measures of accessibility (readability, understandability, actionability) across the thirty-six studies that met our inclusion criteria. Accuracy and quality scores showed roughly similar distributions, with median values of 79.0% and 76.5%, respectively. Consistency levels were high in the few studies that provided this data (median = 100%). Despite all LLMs having readability scores significantly below the recommended level for patient-facing materials (median = 40.4%), several studies reported substantial improvements through prompt engineering. Understandability (median = 69.0%) and particularly, actionability (median = 40.0%) scores were lower than desired. ConclusionsDespite current limitations, LLMs hold significant potential as an assistant tool for disseminating health information to patients. Active involvement of physicians in model training and validation can help improve their performance.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 96%
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 95%
- Using a Multilingual AI Care Agent to Reduce Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Higher FIT Test Adoption Among Spanish-Speaking Patients 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 95%
- Performance of Generative Pretrained Transformer on the National Medical Licensing Examination in Japan 94%
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Deep Learning Approach for Transgender and Gender Diverse Patient Identification in Electronic Health Records 92%
- Biomedical Text Normalization through Generative Modeling 92%
- Impact of COVID-19 on the outreach strategy of cancer social service agencies in Singapore: A pre-post analysis with Facebook data 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 94%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 93%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.