Abstract:Background: As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become widely accessible, more patients and medical professionals will turn to them for medical information. Large language models (LLMs), a subset of AI, excel in natural language processing tasks and hold considerable promise for clinical use. Fields such as oncology, in which clinical decisions are highly dependent on a continuous influx of new clinical trial data and evolving guidelines, stand to gain immensely from such advancements. It is therefore of critical importance to benchmark these models and describe their performance characteristics to guide their safe application to clinical oncology. Accordingly, the primary objectives of this work were to conduct comprehensive evaluations of LLMs in the field of oncology and to identify and characterize strategies that medical professionals can use to bolster their confidence in a model's response. Methods: This study tested five publicly available LLMs (LLaMA 1, PaLM 2, Claude-v1, generative pretrained transformer 3.5 [GPT-3.5], and GPT-4) on a comprehensive battery of 2044 oncology questions, including topics from medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, medical statistics, medical physics, and cancer biology. Model prompts were presented independently of each other, and each prompt was repeated three times to assess output consistency. For each response, models were instructed to provide a self-appraised confidence score (from 1 to 4). Model performance was also evaluated against a novel validation set comprising 50 oncology questions curated to eliminate any risk of overlap with the data used to train the LLMs. Results: There was significant heterogeneity in performance between models (analysis of variance, P<0.001). Relative to a human benchmark (2013 and 2014 examination results), GPT-4 was the only model to perform above the 50th percentile. Overall, model performance varied as a function of subject area across all models, with worse performance observed in clinical oncology subcategories compared with foundational topics (medical statistics, medical physics, and cancer biology). Within the clinical oncology subdomain, worse performance was observed in female-predominant malignancies. A combination of model selection, prompt repetition, and confidence self-appraisal allowed for the identification of high-performing subgroups of questions with observed accuracies of 81.7 and 81.1% in the Claude-v1 and GPT-4 models, respectively. Evaluation of the novel validation question set produced similar trends in model performance while also highlighting improved performance in newer, centrally hosted models (GPT-4 Turbo and Gemini 1.0 Ultra) and local models (Mixtral 8×7B and LLaMA 2). Conclusions: Of the models tested on a standardized set of oncology questions, GPT-4 was observed to have the highest performance. Although this performance is impressive, all LLMs continue to have clinically significant error rates, including examples of overconfidence and consistent inaccuracies. Given the enthusiasm to integrate these new implementations of AI into clinical practice, continued standardized evaluations of the strengths and limitations of these products will be critical to guide both patients and medical professionals. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center for Research and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health; Z99 CA999999.).

Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized LLM on Physician Experience in Clinical Decision Support: A Comparison of Ask Avo and ChatGPT-4

Leveraging Large Language Models for Improved Patient Access and Self-Management: Assessor-Blinded Comparison Between Expert- and AI-Generated Content

Systematic analysis of ChatGPT, Google search and Llama 2 for clinical decision support tasks

Can LLMs Correct Physicians, Yet? Investigating Effective Interaction Methods in the Medical Domain

Leveraging Large Language Models for Improved Patient Access and Self-Management in Oral Healthcare: an Assessor-blinded Preclinical Study (Preprint)

Large language models in solving clinical dilemmas - advantages and drawbacks

Evaluation of the Performance of Generative AI Large Language Models ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing Chat in Supporting Evidence-Based Dentistry: Comparative Mixed Methods Study

Language Models And A Second Opinion Use Case: The Pocket Professional

Assessment of a Large Language Model’s Responses to Questions and Cases About Glaucoma and Retina Management

Comparative Evaluation of LLMs in Clinical Oncology

A comparison of the diagnostic ability of large language models in challenging clinical cases

An Active Inference Strategy for Prompting Reliable Responses from Large Language Models in Medical Practice

Unlocking the potential of advanced large language models in medication review and reconciliation: A proof-of-concept investigation

PALLM: Evaluating and Enhancing PALLiative Care Conversations with Large Language Models

P717 Evaluating the performance of Large Language Models in responding to patients' health queries: A comparative analysis with medical experts

Physician Versus Large Language Model Chatbot Responses to Web-Based Questions From Autistic Patients in Chinese: Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis

Evaluating the Adherence of Large Language Models to Surgical Guidelines: A Comparative Analysis of Chatbot Recommendations and North American Spine Society (NASS) Coverage Criteria

Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning

Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial

MEDIC: Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating LLMs in Clinical Applications

Measured Performance and Healthcare Professional Perception of Large Language Models Used as Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Scoping Review