Evolution of publicly available large language models for complex decision-making in breast cancer care
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: This study investigated the concordance of five different publicly available Large Language Models (LLM) with the recommendations of a multidisciplinary tumor board regarding treatment recommendations for complex breast cancer patient profiles. Methods: Five LLM, including three versions of ChatGPT (version 4 and 3.5, with data access until September 3021 and January 2022), Llama2, and Bard were prompted to produce treatment recommendations for 20 complex breast cancer patient profiles. LLM recommendations were compared to the recommendations of a multidisciplinary tumor board (gold standard), including surgical, endocrine and systemic treatment, radiotherapy, and genetic testing therapy options. Results: GPT4 demonstrated the highest concordance (70.6%) for invasive breast cancer patient profiles, followed by GPT3.5 September 2021 (58.8%), GPT3.5 January 2022 (41.2%), Llama2 (35.3%) and Bard (23.5%). Including precancerous lesions of ductal carcinoma in situ, the identical ranking was reached with lower overall concordance for each LLM (GPT4 60.0%, GPT3.5 September 2021 50.0%, GPT3.5 January 2022 35.0%, Llama2 30.0%, Bard 20.0%). GPT4 achieved full concordance (100%) for radiotherapy. Lowest alignment was reached in recommending genetic testing, demonstrating a varying concordance (55.0% for GPT3.5 January 2022, Llama2 and Bard up to 85.0% for GPT4). Conclusion: This early feasibility study is the first to compare different LLM in breast cancer care with regard to changes in accuracy over time, i.e., with access to more data or through technological upgrades. Methodological advancement, i.e., the optimization of prompting techniques, and technological development, i.e., enabling data input control and secure data processing, are necessary in the preparation of large-scale and multicenter studies to provide evidence on their safe and reliable clinical application. At present, safe and evidenced use of LLM in clinical breast cancer care is not yet feasible.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
This pattern aligns with previous observations that the performance of ChatGPT models may decline over time.
“This pattern aligns with previous observations that the performance of ChatGPT models may decline over time [26].”
From Diagnostic performance of Prof. Valmed, ChatGPT-5 Thinking, and OpenEvidence in rheumatology: A comparative evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
Griewing et al. consistently identified genetic testing as the domain of lowest LLM-MDT concordance across five model versions in breast cancer.
“Griewing et al. consistently identified genetic testing as the domain of lowest LLM–MDT concordance across five model versions in breast cancer [32]”
Our data corroborate Griewing et al.'s finding that genetic testing is the domain of lowest LLM-MDT concordance.
“a finding that our data corroborate.”
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
How Is ChatGPT’s Behavior Changing Over Time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2024) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.5317da47 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
Large language models and their impact in ophthalmology
Betzler, B. K., Chen, H., Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, C. S., Ning, G., Song, S. J., Lee, A. Y., Kawasaki, R., van Wijngaarden, P., Grzybowski, A., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00201-7 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Lukac, S., Dayan, D., Fink, V., Leinert, E., Hartkopf, A., Veselinovic, K., Janni, W., Rack, B., Pfister, K., Heitmeir, B., et al. (2023) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-023-07130-5 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Roos, J., Kasapovic, A., Jansen, T., & Kaczmarczyk, R. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/46482 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Beyond Dr. Google: the evidence on consumer-facing digital tools for diagnosis
Millenson, M. L., Baldwin, J. L., Zipperer, L., & Singh, H. (2018) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2018-0009 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- [1]Brustdrüse–C 50 (2023) In: Robert Koch Institut (ed) Krebs in Deutschland für 2019/2020, 14th edition, Berlin, pp 78–81. 10.25646/11357 · DOI
- [4]Tarawneh TS Rodepeter FR Teply-Szymanski J Combined focused next-generation sequencing assays to guide precision oncology in solid tumors: a retrospective analysis from an institutional molecular tumor board Cancers (Basel) 2022 10.3390/cancers14184430 36139590 PMC9496918 · DOI
- [5]Santa-Maria CA Wolff AC Antibody-drug conjugates in breast cancer: searching for magic bullets J Clin Oncol 2023 41 4 732 735 10.1200/JCO.22.02217 36446052 · DOI
- [6]Bhattacharya T Brettin T Doroshow JH AI meets exascale computing: advancing cancer research with large-scale high performance computing Front Oncol 2019 2 9 984 10.3389/fonc.2019.00984 PMC6783509 31632915 · DOI
- [7]Barker AD Lee JSH Translating “Big Data” in oncology for clinical benefit: progress or paralysis Cancer Res 2022 82 2072 2075 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-0100 35416976 PMC9306452 · DOI
- [8]Poon H Multimodal generative AI for precision health NEJM AI 2023 10.1056/AI-S2300233 · DOI
- [9]Goldberg C Patient portal NEJM AI 2023 10.1056/AIp2300189 · DOI
- [11]Pfob A Griewing S Seitz K Current landscape of hospital information systems in gynecology and obstetrics in Germany: a survey of the commission Digital Medicine of the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023 308 1823 1830 10.1007/s00404-023-07223-1 37740792 PMC10579143 · DOI
- [12]Pfob A Hillen C Seitz K Status quo and future directions of digitalization in gynecology and obstetrics in Germany: a survey of the commission Digital Medicine of the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023 10.1007/s00404-023-07222-2 37755531 PMC10769997 · DOI
- [14]Pergolizzi J Jr LeQuang JAK Vasiliu-Feltes I Brave new healthcare: a narrative review of digital healthcare in American medicine Cureus 2023 10.7759/cureus.46489 37927734 PMC10623488 · DOI
- [15]Knitza J Muehlensiepen F Ignatyev Y Patient’s perception of digital symptom assessment technologies in rheumatology: results from a multicentre study Front Public Health 2022 10.3389/fpubh.2022.844669 35273944 PMC8902046 · DOI
- [17]Buhr CR Smith H Huppertz T ChatGPT versus consultants: blinded evaluation on answering otorhinolaryngology case–based questions JMIR Med Educ 2023 9 e49183 10.2196/49183 38051578 PMC10731554 · DOI
- [18]Massey PA Montgomery C Zhang AS Comparison of ChatGPT–3.5, ChatGPT-4, and orthopaedic resident performance on orthopaedic assessment examinations J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2023 31 23 1173 1179 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00396 37671415 PMC10627532 · DOI
- [20]Takagi S Watari T Erabi A Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: comparison study JMIR Med Educ 2023 10.2196/48002 37384388 PMC10365615 · DOI · Paper page
- [21]Schopow N Osterhoff G Baur D NLP applications in clinical practice: a comparative study and augmented systematic review with ChatGPT (Preprint) JMIR Med Inform 2023 10.2196/48933 38015610 PMC10716749 · DOI
- [23]Sorin V Klang E Sklair-Levy M Large language model (ChatGPT) as a support tool for breast tumor board NPJ Breast Cancer 2023 10.1038/s41523-023-00557-8 37253791 PMC10229606 · DOI
- [24]Griewing S Gremke N Wagner U Challenging ChatGPT 3.5 in senology—an assessment of concordance with breast cancer tumor board decision making J Pers Med 2023 10.3390/jpm13101502 37888113 PMC10608120 · DOI
- [28]Rao A Pang M Kim J Assessing the utility of ChatGPT throughout the entire clinical workflow: development and usability study J Med Internet Res 2023 22 25 e48659 10.2196/48659 PMC10481210 37606976 · DOI · Paper page
- [29]Rao A Kim J Kamineni M Evaluating GPT as an adjunct for radiologic decision making_ GPT-4 versus GPT-3.5 in a breast imaging pilot J Am Coll Radiol 2023 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.05.003 37356806 PMC10733745 · DOI
- [30]Haver HL Ambinder EB Bahl M Appropriateness of breast cancer prevention and screening recommendations provided by ChatGPT Radiology 2023 10.1148/radiol.230424 37014239 · DOI · Paper page
- [31]Choi HS Song JY Shin KH Developing prompts from large language model for extracting clinical information from pathology and ultrasound reports in breast cancer Radiat Oncol J 2023 41 209 216 10.3857/roj.2023.00633 37793630 PMC10556835 · DOI
- [32]Gao CA Howard FM Markov NS Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers NPJ Digit Med 2023 10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 37100871 PMC10133283 · DOI · Paper page
- [33]Eriksen AV Möller S Ryg J Use of GPT-4 to diagnose complex clinical cases NEJM AI 2023 10.1056/aip2300031 · DOI · Paper page
- [34]van Walle L Verhoeven D Marotti L Ponti A Tomatis M Rubio IT EUSOMA Working Group Trends and variation in treatment of early breast cancer in European certified breast centres: an EUSOMA-based analysis Eur J Cancer 2023 192 113244 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113244 37633095 · DOI
- [35]Derks MGM Bastiaannet E Kiderlen M Variation in treatment and survival of older patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in five European countries: a population-based cohort study from the EURECCA Breast Cancer Group Br J Cancer 2018 119 121 129 10.1038/s41416-018-0090-1 29875471 PMC6035184 · DOI
- [36]Yan Y Zhang L Tan L Endocrine therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the breast with Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) and Radiotherapy (RT): a meta-analysis Pathol Oncol Res 2020 26 521 531 10.1007/s12253-018-0553-y 30499075 · DOI
- [37]Gottlieb S Silvis L How to safely integrate large language models into health care JAMA Health Forum 2023 4 9 e233909 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3909 37733359 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kremer, P., Langballe, E., Haase, I., Bamberger, J., Kuhn, S., Krusche, M., & Knitza, J. (2026) · Rheumatology International · doi:10.1007/s00296-025-06068-y · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citationMeyer, B., Kfuri‐Rubens, R., Schmidt, G., Tariq, M., Riedel, C., Recker, F., Riedel, F., Kiechle, M., & Riedel, M. (2025) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70251 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Agentic artificial intelligence is the future of cancer detection and diagnosis
Rahman, S., Hosain, M. T., Fahad, N., Morol, M. K., & Hossen, M. J. (2026) · Array · doi:10.1016/j.array.2025.100676 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Asoglu, H., Kose, S., Kayim, O., Abaci, A., Khatib, G., Vardar, M. A., Kilic Bagir, E., Gumurdulu, D., Kidi, M. M., Bayram, E., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15124451 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Griewing et al. consistently identified genetic testing as the domain of lowest LLM–MDT concordance across five model versions in breast cancer [32], a finding that our data corroborate.”
- Authors
- Griewing, S., Knitza, J., Boekhoff, J., Hillen, C., Lechner, F., Wagner, U., Wallwiener, M., & Kuhn, S.
- Affiliations
- Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Griewing, Sebastian
- Venue
- Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
- Published
- 2024-05-29
- Volume
- 310
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 537-550
- ISSN
- 0003-9128 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0711
- PMC
- PMC11169005
- OpenAlex
- W4399135974
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PUBLISSO (German National Library of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Digitalen Hochschulbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt (Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Philipps-Universität Marburg
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- large language models, multidisciplinary tumor board, ChatGPT, Llama 2, Google Bard, ductal carcinoma in situ, genetic testing, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Decision-Making, Breast Neoplasms, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans
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