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.).

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

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

The performance of large language model powered chatbots compared to oncology physicians on colorectal cancer queries

Comparative Evaluation of LLMs in Clinical Oncology

O87: Stratified Evaluation of Large Language Model GPT-4’s Question-Answering In Surgery reveals AI Knowledge Gaps

Assessing the performance of large language models (LLMs) in answering medical questions regarding breast cancer in the Chinese context

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

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

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

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

Large Language Models Take on Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Four Models on American Board of Thoracic Surgery Exam Questions in 2023

Performance of a trained large language model to provide clinical trial recommendation in a head and neck cancer population.

How do large language models answer breast cancer quiz questions? A comparative study of GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and Google Gemini

Large language model answers medical questions about standard pathology reports

Large Language Models in Pathology: A Comparative Study on Multiple Choice Question Performance with Pathology Trainees

Large language foundation models encode clinical radiation oncology domain knowledge: Performance on the American College of Radiology Standardized Examination.

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

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

Improving accuracy of GPT-3/4 results on biomedical data using a retrieval-augmented language model

Large Language Models Leverage External Knowledge to Extend Clinical Insight Beyond Language Boundaries

How Well Does ChatGPT Do When Taking the Medical Licensing Exams? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment