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.).

Benchmarking Human-AI Collaboration for Common Evidence Appraisal Tools

High-performance automated abstract screening with large language model ensembles

GPT for RCTs? Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines

The accuracy of large language models in labelling neurosurgical ‘case-control studies’ and risk of bias assessment: protocol for a study of interrater agreement with human reviewers.

Performance of two large language models for data extraction in evidence synthesis

Artificial Intelligence to Automate Network Meta-Analyses: Four Case Studies to Evaluate the Potential Application of Large Language Models

Benchmarking Large Language Models in Evidence-Based Medicine

Evaluation of Large Language Model Performance on the Biomedical Language Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark : Comparative Study

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

The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study

Evaluation of large language model performance on the Biomedical Language Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark

Accelerating Clinical Evidence Synthesis with Large Language Models

Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT‐4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer‐reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages

Large language models for abstract screening in systematic- and scoping reviews: A diagnostic test accuracy study

Implementation and evaluation of an additional GPT-4-based reviewer in PRISMA-based medical systematic literature reviews

Integrating large language models in systematic reviews: a framework and case study using ROBINS-I for risk of bias assessment

A Framework for Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Healthcare Derived from Literature Review

Data extraction for evidence synthesis using a large language model: A proof‐of‐concept study

Can large language models replace humans in the systematic review process? Evaluating GPT-4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages

Integrating human expertise & automated methods for a dynamic and multi-parametric evaluation of large language models' feasibility in clinical decision-making

Comparative Evaluation of LLMs in Clinical Oncology