Can ChatGPT give holistic and accurate patient-centred information to oncology patients? A mixed-methods evaluation with stakeholders
Sun, M.; Reiter, E.; Murchie, P.; Kiltie, A. E.; Ramsay, G.; Duncan, L.; Adam, R.
Show abstract
ObjectiveMore people than ever before are living with cancer. Patient education is a core component of cancer care, and patients are increasingly using large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, for advice. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to explain specialist cancer care records (multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting reports) to patients and to understand key stakeholders views and opinions about the technology. MethodsSix simulated MDT meeting reports were created by cancer clinicians. MDT reports and 184 realistic patient-centred queries were input into ChatGPT4.0 web version. We conducted a mixed-methods study combining qualitative analysis with exploratory quantitative components to evaluate ChatGPTs responses. The study consisted of three stages: (1) Clinician sense-checking, (2) Clinical and non-clinical annotation, (3) focus groups (including cancer patients, caregivers, computer scientists, and clinicians). ResultsChatGPT was able to summarise complex oncology information into simpler language, to provide definitions of complex terms and to answer questions about clinical care. However, clinician sense-checking identified problems with accuracy, language and content. In clinician annotation, 92.6% of ChatGPTs responses were judged problematic. Across all evaluation methods, six recurring themes were identified: accuracy, language, trust, content, personalisation and integration challenges. Patients and clinicians found the summaries and definitions useful; however, the responses were not tailored to the individual patient or to what the report might mean for them. ConclusionThis study highlights current challenges in using LLMs to explain complex cancer diagnoses and treatment records, including inaccurate information, inappropriate language, limited personalisation, AI distrust and challenges in integrating LLMs into clinical workflow. Understanding of the limitations is crucial for clinicians, patients, computer scientists and policy makers. The issues should be addressed before deploying LLMs in clinical settings.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 96%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 94%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 93%
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%
- Design and implementation of a system for automated monitoring of adherence to evidenced-based clinical guideline recommendations 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 95%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 94%
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication 94%
"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.