Cited by 68Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Large language model integrations in cancer decision-making: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Hao, Yuexing, Qiu, Zhiwen, Holmes, Jason, Löckenhoff, Corinna E., Liu, Wei, Ghassemi, Marzyeh, Kalantari, Saleh·2025·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support cancer patients and clinicians in decision-making. This systematic review investigates how LLMs are integrated into oncology and evaluated by researchers. We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the ACM Digital Library through May 2024, identifying 56 studies covering 15 cancer types. The meta-analysis results suggested that LLMs were commonly used to summarize, translate, and communicate clinical information, but performance varied: the average overall accuracy was 76.2%, with average diagnostic accuracy lower at 67.4%, revealing gaps in the clinical readiness of this technology. Most evaluations relied heavily on quantitative datasets and automated methods without human graders, emphasizing “accuracy” and “appropriateness” while rarely addressing “safety”, “harm”, or “clarity”. Current limitations for LLMs in cancer decision-making, such as limited domain knowledge and dependence on human oversight, demonstrate the need for open datasets and standardized evaluations to improve 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-025-01824-7

Cites

82 of 82 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: 4

  1. [5]Wang, J. et al. Prompt engineering for healthcare: methodologies and applications. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14670 (2023). · arXiv
  2. [6]White, J. et al. A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. Proc. 30th Conf. on Pattern Languages of Programs 5, 1–31 (2023).
  3. [44]Hao, Y. et al. Retrospective comparative analysis of prostate cancer in-basket messages: responses from closed-domain LLM vs. clinical teams. Mayo Clin Proc Digit. Health3, 100198 (2025). PMC11932704 40130001
  4. [50]Hao, Y., Qiu, Z. & Kalantari, S. Systematic review for AI-based chatbot for clinical decision support (Open Science Framework, 2024).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hao, Y., Qiu, Z., Holmes, J., Löckenhoff, C. E., Liu, W., Ghassemi, M., & Kalantari, S.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic Hospital (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hao, Yuexing
  • Liu, Wei
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2025-07-17
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
450-450
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4412490346
Cited by
67
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 12
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • American Psychological Foundation
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA280134)
  • Eric & Wendy Schmidt Fund for AI Research and Innovation
  • Fred C. and Katherine B. Anderson Foundation
  • Kemper Marley Foundation
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, clinical decision support, LLM evaluation, diagnostic accuracy, clinical translation, human oversight, standardized assessment

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