Back

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.

2026-02-03 primary care research
10.64898/2026.02.02.26345346 medRxiv
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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.2%
2
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.7%
3
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.6%
5
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
6
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
7
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
8
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
9
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
12
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
18
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
19
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
21
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
22
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.4%
23
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
24
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
25
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
27
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
28
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
29
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
30
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%