Development and evaluation of large-language models (LLMs) for oncology: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs), a significant development in artificial intelligence (AI), are continuing to demonstrate seminal improvement in performance for various text analysis and generation tasks. There are limited systematic studies on LLM applications that were developed/evaluated in relevance to oncology. Our scoping review explores applications of LLMs in oncology to determine (1) the nature of LLM applications relevant to a cancer/tumor type, (2) the phases of cancer care addressed by the LLMs, (3) which LLMs were used in these applications, (4) the sources and pre-processing of datasets used, (5) the techniques used to optimize the performance of LLMs, (6) the methods of evaluation, and (7) the common limitations noted by the authors of these LLM applications and to study their implications in research and practice. A librarian-assisted search was performed across the following databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Embase, Engineering Village, IEEE Xplore, Medline, Scopus, SPIE and Web of Science till Jan 12, 2024. Pre-prints from this search were considered if they were published/accepted by Feb 29, 2024. From the initial search of 14863 articles, 60 were finally included. Our results demonstrated that LLMs were mostly evaluated across a diverse set of oncology-related applications. Generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-based LLMs were mostly used. In the subset of studies where the phase(s) of cancer care was/were provided or implied, treatment and diagnosis were the most included phases. Data for development and evaluation extended from patient health records, synthetic patient records, research and professional society publications to social media. Prompt-designing and engineering were performed as data pre-processing steps in several studies. Clinicians, trainees, researchers, and patients were among the variety of users targeted by the applications. In the17% studies that developed LLMs for oncological aspects, domain adaptation through pre-training and fine-tuning were often performed and resulted in performance improvement. The evaluation of an LLM's performance involved usage of both standard, validated, non-standardized, and/or customized performance measures considering a variety of constructs, other than accuracy. Six primary themes emerged as limitations including limitation of generalizability/applicability, sample size, bias and subjectivity, and evaluation metrics. This review highlights that LLMs, specific to oncological aspects, are less common than general-purpose LLMs. The application areas were heterogeneous, used diverse data sources, were directed towards a variety of users, and resulted in variety of evaluation methods. Despite the diversity of LLM applications in oncology, future research needs to address the limited generalizability of these applications, mitigation of bias and subjectivity, and standardization of evaluation methodologies. Future applications of LLMs in oncology should include developing oncology-specific LLMs that can mitigate knowledge gaps and extend to diverse areas of oncology training and practice not considered so far.
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 | 0.032 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".