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 Large Language Models on their Accuracy and Completeness: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and their Ocular Toxicities

Accuracy and Completeness of Large Language Models About Antibody-Drug Conjugates and Associated Ocular Adverse Effects

Comparison of Large Language Models in Answering Immuno-Oncology Questions: A Cross-Sectional Study

Enhancing Precision in Detecting Severe Immune-Related Adverse Events: Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and International Classification of Disease Codes in Patient Records

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

Large language models management of complex medication regimens: a case-based evaluation

Artificial intelligence derived large language model in decision-making process in uveitis

Comparative Evaluation of LLMs in Clinical Oncology

Evaluating the Appropriateness, Consistency, and Readability of ChatGPT in Critical Care Recommendations

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

Evaluating the effectiveness of large language models in patient education for conjunctivitis

Accuracy and consistency of publicly available Large Language Models as clinical decision support tools for the management of colon cancer

Evaluating multiple large language models in pediatric ophthalmology

Exploring the role of artificial intelligence, large language models: Comparing patient‐focused information and clinical decision support capabilities to the gynecologic oncology guidelines

Evaluating the reliability of the responses of large language models to keratoconus-related questions

Utility of Large Language Models for Health Care Professionals and Patients in Navigating Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Comparison of the Performance of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Bard

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

Evaluating Accuracy and Reproducibility of Large Language Model Performance in Pharmacy Education

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

Do Large Language Model Chatbots perform better than established patient information resources in answering patient questions? A comparative study on melanoma