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.

Is Information About Musculoskeletal Malignancies From Large Language Models or Web Resources at a Suitable Reading Level for Patients?

Patient education resources for oral mucositis: a google search and ChatGPT analysis

Readability analysis of ChatGPT's responses on lung cancer

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

Empowering patients: how accurate and readable are large language models in renal cancer education

Are large language models a useful resource to address common patient concerns on hallux valgus? A readability analysis

Can Large Language Models Aid Caregivers of Pediatric Cancer Patients in Information Seeking? A Cross-Sectional Investigation

To trust or not to trust: evaluating the reliability and safety of AI responses to laryngeal cancer queries

Assessment of the quality, readability, and usefulness of ChatGPT generated medical information for ten common cancer types

A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials

Evaluating the readability of online patient information for cholangiocarcinoma.

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in providing information on retinal detachment: a multicenter expert comparative study

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

The Use of Large Language Models to Generate Education Materials about Uveitis

Performance of large language models (LLMs) in providing prostate cancer information

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