Cited by 94Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementationBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

GPT-4 for Information Retrieval and Comparison of Medical Oncology Guidelines

Ferber, Dyke, Wiest, Isabella C., Wölflein, Georg, Ebert, Matthias P., Beutel, Gernot, Eckardt, Jan-Niklas, Truhn, Daniel, Springfeld, Christoph +2 more·2024·NEJM AI

Abstract

Oncologists face increasingly complex clinical decision-making processes as new cancer therapies are approved and treatment guidelines are revised at an unprecedented rate. With the aim of improving oncologists' efficiency and supporting their adherence to the most recent treatment recommendations, we evaluated the use of the large language model generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4) to interpret guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology. The ability of GPT-4 to answer clinically relevant questions regarding the management of patients with pancreatic cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma was assessed. We also assessed GPT-4 outputs with and without retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), which provided additional knowledge to the model, and then manually compared the results with the original guideline documents. GPT-4 with RAG provided correct responses in 84% of cases (of 218 statements, 184 were correct, 30 were inaccurate, and 4 were wrong). GPT-4 without RAG provided correct responses in only 57% of cases (of 163 statements, 93 were correct, 29 were inaccurate, and 41 were wrong). We showed that GPT-4, when enhanced with additional clinical information through RAG, can accurately identify detailed similarities and disparities in diagnostic and treatment proposals across different authoritative sources.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/aics2300235

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferber, D., Wiest, I. C., Wölflein, G., Ebert, M. P., Beutel, G., Eckardt, J.-N., Truhn, D., Springfeld, C., Jäger, D., & Kather, J. N.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
Venue
NEJM AI
Published
2024-05-23
Volume
1
Issue
6
Pages
AIcs2300235-AIcs2300235
ISSN
2836-9386 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4397003633
Cited by
92
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 19
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NEJM AI (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
GPT-4, large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, guideline comparison, clinical decision support, pancreatic cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, ASCO guidelines, ESMO guidelines, guideline adherence

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