MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413050320 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000980

Development and evaluation of large-language models (LLMs) for oncology: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4413050320 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it