Abstract:Abstract Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT can imitate human conversation and produce rapid, coherent responses, which may mask their potential for inaccuracies. With patients increasingly turning to the internet for medical information, the use of LLM chatbots for cancer-related queries risks spreading misinformation. Our study assessed ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility in offering valid information and treatment advice for lung cancer in line with established guidelines. In the evolving landscape of AI-driven healthcare support, the ability of language models to provide accurate and reliable information is crucial. Our study delves into the effectiveness of OpenAI's ChatGPT models (versions 3.5 and 4.0) in responding to patient inquiries about lung cancer across various domains including general information, clinical presentation, risk factors, screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment options, prognosis, post-treatment follow-up, lifestyle recommendations, and psychosocial/educational aspects. We conducted a structured assessment, posing identical sets of questions to both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0. A total of 47 questions were posed with each query being repeated twice per model to evaluate both the accuracy and reproducibility of the responses. The scoring system focused on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of each response. Our findings revealed a notable disparity in the performance of the two models. GPT 4.0 demonstrated higher consistency and accuracy, with 41 out of 47 (87.2%) responses deemed accurate and comprehensive, compared to 36 out of 47 (76.6%) for GPT 3.5. In terms of reproducibility, both models exhibited strong performance: 42 out of 47 (89.3%) for GPT 3.5 and 45 out of 47 for GPT 4.0 (95.7%). When comparing responses between the models, we observed good reproducibility in 38 out of 47 questions (80.8%). A key observation was that GPT 4.0 significantly outperformed its predecessor GPT 3.5 in terms of both accuracy as well as reproducibility within its own responses, indicating a more reliable and consistent performance. The area most lacking in accuracy for both models was lung cancer staging, indicating a need for further refinement in this domain. Another key observation was the models' tendency to incorporate empathetic language, often beginning responses with expressions of sympathy and consistently advising confirmation with a medical professional. Our study underscores the potential and limitations of current AI models in patient education and support, highlighting areas for improvement and the importance of empathetic communication in AI interactions with patients. As the model continues to be trained on a larger and more comprehensive set of data, it is reasonable to anticipate further improvements in its ability to provide precise, detailed, and contextually appropriate responses. Citation Format: Asiyah Allibhai, Ahmed Allibhai, Anthony Brade, Zishan Allibhai. Evaluating the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT models in answering lung cancer patient queries [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1296.

Evaluating the accuracy of large language model (ChatGPT) in providing information on metastatic breast cancer

Abstract 1296: Evaluating the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT models in answering lung cancer patient queries

Implementing large language model-based artificial intelligence (AI) technology in proposing effective treatment plans in patients with cancer.

The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence ChatGPT in Oncology Examination Questions

Reliability of artificial intelligence chatbot responses to frequently asked questions in breast surgical oncology

Generative artificial intelligence as a source of breast cancer information for patients: Proceed with caution

Comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4.0's management of six gastrointestinal cancers according to the NCCN guidelines.

Evaluating AI in medicine: a comparative analysis of expert and ChatGPT responses to colorectal cancer questions

Assessing ChatGPT's potential as a clinical resource for medical oncologists: An evaluation with board-style questions and real-world patient cases.

Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT as a Patient Education Tool in Prostate Cancer: Multimetric Assessment

Artificial intelligence large language model ChatGPT: is it a trustworthy and reliable source of information for sarcoma patients?

Large language models' responses to liver cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management questions: accuracy, reliability, readability

Unleashing the power of AI: Assessing the reliability of ChatGPT in disseminating breast cancer awareness

Evaluating Capabilities of Large Language Models: Performance of GPT4 on Surgical Knowledge Assessments

Accuracy, readability, and understandability of large language models for prostate cancer information to the public

Using ChatGPT to evaluate cancer myths and misconceptions: artificial intelligence and cancer information

An assessment of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions about cervical and breast cancer

Large language models encode medical oncology knowledge: Performance on the ASCO and ESMO examination questions.

Evaluating ChatGPT to test its robustness as an interactive information database of radiation oncology and to assess its responses to common queries from radiotherapy patients: A single institution investigation

Is ChatGPT accurate and reliable in answering questions regarding head and neck cancer?

Quality of ChatGPT-Generated Therapy Recommendations for Breast Cancer Treatment in Gynecology