Cited by 29Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Accuracy and consistency of publicly available Large Language Models as clinical decision support tools for the management of colon cancer

Open access
Kaiser, Kristen N., Hughes, Alexa J., Yang, Anthony D., Turk, Anita A., Mohanty, Sanjay, Gonzalez, Andrew A., Patzer, Rachel E., Bilimoria, Karl Y. +1 more·2024·Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

Background: Large Language Models (LLM; e.g., ChatGPT) may be used to assist clinicians and form the basis of future clinical decision support (CDS) for colon cancer. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the response accuracy of two LLM‐powered interfaces in identifying guideline‐based care in simulated clinical scenarios and (2) define response variation between and within LLMs. Methods: Clinical scenarios with “next steps in management” queries were developed based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Prompts were entered into OpenAI ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot in independent sessions, yielding four responses per scenario. Responses were compared to clinician‐developed responses and assessed for accuracy, consistency, and verbosity. Results: Across 108 responses to 27 prompts, both platforms yielded completely correct responses to 36% of scenarios ( n = 39). For ChatGPT, 39% ( n = 21) were missing information and 24% ( n = 14) contained inaccurate/misleading information. Copilot performed similarly, with 37% ( n = 20) having missing information and 28% ( n = 15) containing inaccurate/misleading information ( p = 0.96). Clinician responses were significantly shorter (34 ± 15.5 words) than both ChatGPT (251 ± 86 words) and Copilot (271 ± 67 words; both p < 0.01). Conclusions: Publicly available LLM applications often provide verbose responses with vague or inaccurate information regarding colon cancer management. Significant optimization is required before use in formal CDS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jso.27821

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [16]Pereyra L, Schlottmann F, Steinberg L, Lasa J. Colorectal Cancer Prevention: Is Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (Chat GPT) ready to Assist Physicians in Determining Appropriate Screening and Surveillance Recommendations? Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2024. 38319619

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaiser, K. N., Hughes, A. J., Yang, A. D., Turk, A. A., Mohanty, S., Gonzalez, A. A., Patzer, R. E., Bilimoria, K. Y., & Ellis, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Ellis, Ryan J.
Venue
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-08-19
Volume
130
Issue
5
Pages
1104-1110
ISSN
  • 0022-4790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9098
OpenAlex
W4401709391
Cited by
29
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Surgical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG071945)
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA282070)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, clinical decision support, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, response accuracy, response consistency, NCCN guidelines, simulated clinical scenarios
MeSH terms
Colonic Neoplasms, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review