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.).

The Value of Twin Studies: A Response to Slate Magazine / Research Reviews / Twin News Worth Noting

Evidence-based potential of generative artificial intelligence large language models in orthodontics: a comparative study of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing

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

Evaluating the efficacy of leading large language models in the Japanese national dental hygienist examination: A comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing Chat

Comprehensiveness of Large Language Models in Patient Queries on Gingival and Endodontic Health

A Survey of Clinicians’ Views of the Utility of Large Language Models

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

Comparative Evaluation of LLMs in Clinical Oncology

Performance of three artificial intelligence (AI)‐based large language models in standardized testing; implications for AI‐assisted dental education

Performance of Large Language Models (ChatGPT, Bing Search, and Google Bard) in Solving Case Vignettes in Physiology

Systematic review: The use of large language models as medical chatbots in digestive diseases

Assessing the Accuracy, Completeness, and Reliability of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses in Dentistry: A Pilot Study Evaluating the ChatGPT Model

Adopting Generative AI with Precaution in Dentistry: A Review and Reflection

Utility of artificial intelligence‐based large language models in ophthalmic care

Determinants of exercise-induced changes in mitral regurgitation in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction.

Histochemical differentiation of Brugia, Wuchereria, Dirofilaria and Breinlia microfilariae.

Accuracy of large language models in answering ophthalmology board-style questions: A meta-analysis

Performance of Large Language Models on the Korean Dental Licensing Examination: A Comparative Study

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT, Bing, and Medical Students in Germany

AI chatbots show promise but limitations on UK medical exam questions: a comparative performance study

Performance of Publicly Available Large Language Models on Internal Medicine Board-style Questions