Quality of Large Language Model Responses to Radiation Oncology Patient Care Questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in simulating human-like dialogue. Their efficacy in accurate patient-clinician communication within radiation oncology has yet to be explored. Objective: To determine an LLM's quality of responses to radiation oncology patient care questions using both domain-specific expertise and domain-agnostic metrics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study retrieved questions and answers from websites (accessed February 1 to March 20, 2023) affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and the Radiological Society of North America. These questions were used as queries for an AI LLM, ChatGPT version 3.5 (accessed February 20 to April 20, 2023), to prompt LLM-generated responses. Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked the LLM-generated responses for relative factual correctness, relative completeness, and relative conciseness compared with online expert answers. Statistical analysis was performed from July to October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The LLM's responses were ranked by experts using domain-specific metrics such as relative correctness, conciseness, completeness, and potential harm compared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Domain-agnostic metrics encompassing cosine similarity scores, readability scores, word count, lexicon, and syllable counts were computed as independent quality checks for LLM-generated responses. Results: Of the 115 radiation oncology questions retrieved from 4 professional society websites, the LLM performed the same or better in 108 responses (94%) for relative correctness, 89 responses (77%) for completeness, and 105 responses (91%) for conciseness compared with expert answers. Only 2 LLM responses were ranked as having potential harm. The mean (SD) readability consensus score for expert answers was 10.63 (3.17) vs 13.64 (2.22) for LLM answers (P < .001), indicating 10th grade and college reading levels, respectively. The mean (SD) number of syllables was 327.35 (277.15) for expert vs 376.21 (107.89) for LLM answers (P = .07), the mean (SD) word count was 226.33 (191.92) for expert vs 246.26 (69.36) for LLM answers (P = .27), and the mean (SD) lexicon score was 200.15 (171.28) for expert vs 219.10 (61.59) for LLM answers (P = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the LLM generated accurate, comprehensive, and concise responses with minimal risk of harm, using language similar to human experts but at a higher reading level. These findings suggest the LLM's potential, with some retraining, as a valuable resource for patient queries in radiation oncology and other medical fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".