Assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Decision-Making Support for Gynecologic Oncology
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This study investigated the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to provide accurate and consistent answers by focusing on their performance in complex gynecologic cancer cases. Background: LLMs are advancing rapidly and require a thorough evaluation to ensure that they can be safely and effectively used in clinical decision-making. Such evaluations are essential for confirming LLM reliability and accuracy in supporting medical professionals in casework. Study design: We assessed three prominent LLMs—ChatGPT-4 (CG-4), Gemini Advanced (GemAdv), and Copilot—evaluating their accuracy, consistency, and overall performance. Fifteen clinical vignettes of varying difficulty and five open-ended questions based on real patient cases were used. The responses were coded, randomized, and evaluated blindly by six expert gynecologic oncologists using a 5-point Likert scale for relevance, clarity, depth, focus, and coherence. Results: GemAdv demonstrated superior accuracy (81.87 %) compared to both CG-4 (61.60 %) and Copilot (70.67 %) across all difficulty levels. GemAdv consistently provided correct answers more frequently (>60 % every day during the testing period). Although CG-4 showed a slight advantage in adhering to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines, GemAdv excelled in the depth and focus of the answers provided, which are crucial aspects of clinical decision-making. Conclusion: LLMs, especially GemAdv, show potential in supporting clinical practice by providing accurate, consistent, and relevant information for gynecologic cancer. However, further refinement is needed for more complex scenarios. This study highlights the promise of LLMs in gynecologic oncology, emphasizing the need for ongoing development and rigorous evaluation to maximize their clinical utility and reliability.
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?
Gumilar et al. found variable accuracy across three LLMs on gynecologic cancer vignettes.
“Gumilar et al. found variable accuracy across three LLMs on gynecologic cancer vignettes [14].”
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
Artificial scholarship: LLMs in health professions education research
Ellaway, R. H., & Tolsgaard, M. (2023) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-023-10257-4 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- [4]Lee Y. Kim S.Y. Potential applications of ChatGPT in obstetrics and gynecology in Korea: a review article Obstet Gynecol Sci 67 2 2024 153 159 38247132 PMC10948210
- [5]Abu-Rustum N. Yashar C. Arend R. Barber E. Bradley K. Brooks R. Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology J Natl Compr Canc Netw 21 2 2023 181 209 36791750
- [6]Gordon E.B. Towbin A.J. Wingrove P. Shafique U. Haas B. Kitts A.B. Enhancing patient communication with Chat-GPT in radiology: evaluating the efficacy and readability of answers to common imaging-related questions J Am Coll Radio 2023 37863153
- [7]Rahsepar A.A. Tavakoli N. Kim G.H.J. Hassani C. Abtin F. Bedayat A. How AI responds to common lung cancer questions: ChatGPT vs Google Bard Radiology 307 5 2023 e230922 37310252
- [8]Wu T. He S. Liu J. Sun S. Liu K. Han Q.-L. A brief overview of ChatGPT: the history, status quo and potential future development IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin 10 5 2023 1122 1136
- [9]Bhardwaz S.,Kumar J., An Extensive Comparative Analysis of Chatbot Technologies - ChatGPT, Google BARD and Microsoft Bing, in 2023 2nd International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC). 2023. p. 673–679.
- [10]Gumilar K.E. Indraprasta B.R. Hsu Y.-C. Yiou Z.-Y. Hong C. Irawan B. Disparities in medical recommendations from AIbased chatbots across different countries/regions Res Sq 2024 PMC11269683 39048640
- [11]Sikander B. Baker J.J. Deveci C.D. Lund L. Rosenberg J. ChatGPT-4 and human researchers are equal in writing scientific introduction sections: a blinded, randomized, non-inferiority controlled study Cureus 15 11 2023 e49019 PMC10727453 38111405
- [12]Veras M. Dyer J.O. Rooney M. Barros Silva P.G. Rutherford D. Kairy D. Usability and efficacy of artificial intelligence chatbots (ChatGPT) for health sciences students: protocol for a crossover randomized controlled trial JMIR Res Protoc 12 2023 e51873 PMC10709780 37999958
- [13]Daniel C. Ma M. Singh A. Beatrice Bloom M. Nilda Adair R. William Chen M. Patient experience performance at a primary cancer center versus affiliated community facilities Adv Radiat Oncol 8 2023 5 PMC10199182 37216006
- [14]Kapoor N. Haj-Mirzaian A. Yan H.Z. Wickner P. Giess C.S. Eappen S. Patient experience scores for radiologists: comparison with nonradiologist physicians and changes after public posting in an institutional online provider directory Am J Roentgenol 219 2 2022 338 345 35195434
- [15]Vaidya T.S. Mori S. Dusza S.W. Rossi A.M. Nehal K.S. Lee E.H. Appearance-related psychosocial distress following facial skin cancer surgery using the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Arch Dermatol Res 311 9 2019 691 696 31338583 PMC7474556
- [16]Kamo N. Dandapani S.V. Miksad R.A. Houlihan M.J. Kaplan I. Regan M. Evaluation of the SCA instrument for measuring patient satisfaction with cancer care administered via paper or via the Internet Ann Oncol 22 3 2011 723 729 20716625 PMC3042922
- [17]Seth I. Lim B. Xie Y. Cevik J. Rozen W.M. Ross R.J. Comparing the efficacy of large language models ChatGPT, BARD, and Bing AI in providing information on rhinoplasty: an observational study Aesthet Surg J Open Forum 5 2023 ojad084 37795257 PMC10547367
- [18]Zuniga Salazar G. Zuniga D. Vindel C.L. Yoong A.M. Hincapie S. Zuniga A.B. Efficacy of AI chats to determine an emergency: a comparison between open AI's ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing AI Chat Cureus 15 9 2023 e45473 PMC10506659 37727841
- [19]Li S.W. Kemp M.W. Logan S.J.S. Dimri P.S. Singh N. Mattar C.N.Z. ChatGPT outscored human candidates in a virtual objective structured clinical examination in obstetrics and gynecology Am J Obstet Gynecol 229 2 2023 172 e1- e12 37088277
- [20]Gilson A. Safranek C.W. Huang T. Socrates V. Chi L. Taylor R.A. How Does ChatGPT perform on the United States medical licensing examination (USMLE)? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment JMIR Med Educ 9 2023 PMC9947764 36753318
- [21]Kung T.H. Cheatham M. Medenilla A. Sillos C. De Leon L. Elepano C. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models PLOS Digit Health 2 2 2023 e0000198 PMC9931230 36812645
- [22]Suarez A. Diaz-Flores Garcia V. Algar J. Gomez Sanchez M. Llorente de Pedro M. Freire Y. Unveiling the ChatGPT phenomenon: evaluating the consistency and accuracy of endodontic question answers Int Endod J 57 1 2024 108 113 37814369
- [23]Ullah E. Parwani A. Baig M.M. Singh R. Challenges and barriers of using large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT for diagnostic medicine with a focus on digital pathology - a recent scoping review Diagn Pathol 19 1 2024 43 38414074 PMC10898121
- [24]Voigt W. Trautwein M. Improved guideline adherence in oncology through clinical decision-support systems: still hindered by current health IT infrastructures? Curr Opin Oncol 35 1 2023 68 77 36367223
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESMO guidance on the use of Large Language Models in Clinical Practice (ELCAP)
Wong, E. Y. T., Verlingue, L., Aldea, M., Franzoi, M. A., Umeton, R., Halabi, S., Harbeck, N., Indini, A., Prelaj, A., Romano, E., et al. (2025) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2025.09.001 · Cited by 44 · 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
“…versions and limited sample sizes: Meyer et al. evaluated GPT-4 in 60 gynecologic and senologic cases [12], Psilopatis et al. demonstrated feasibility but noted discrepancies in complex cases [13], and Gumilar et al. found variable accuracy across three LLMs on gynecologic cancer vignettes [14].”
- Authors
- Gumilar, K. E., Indraprasta, B. R., Faridzi, A. S., Wibowo, B. M., Herlambang, A., Rahestyningtyas, E., Irawan, B., Tambunan, Z., Bustomi, A. F., Brahmantara, B. N., Yu, Z.-Y., Hsu, Y.-C., Pramuditya, H., Putra, V. G. E., Nugroho, H., Mulawardhana, P., Tjokroprawiro, B. A., Hedianto, T., Ibrahim, I. H., Huang, J., Li, D., Lu, C.-H., Yang, J.-Y., Liao, L.-N., & Tan, M.
- Affiliations
- China Medical University (TW)
- Universitas Airlangga (ID)
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Ramelan Naval Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia
- Dr. Kariadi Hospital (ID)
- Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ID)
- University of South Alabama (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Taichung Veterans General Hospital (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Gumilar, Khanisyah Erza
- Yang, Jer-Yen
- Liao, Li-Na
- Tan, Ming
- ORCID
- Venue
- Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
- Published
- 2024-11-11
- Volume
- 23
- Pages
- 4019-4026
- ISSN
- 2001-0370 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11603009
- OpenAlex
- W4403987029
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 2.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Education
- China Medical University (CMU109-YT-04, CMU112-IP-01, CMU113-MF-56)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- large language models, gynecologic oncology, clinical decision support, ChatGPT-4, Gemini Advanced, Copilot, gynecologic cancer, clinical vignettes, expert evaluation
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