Purpose: Bard by Google, a direct competitor to ChatGPT, was recently released. Understanding the relative performance of these different chatbots can provide important insight into their strengths and weaknesses as well as which roles they are most suited to fill. In this project, we aimed to compare the most recent version of ChatGPT, ChatGPT-4, and Bard by Google, in their ability to accurately respond to radiology board examination practice questions. Methods: Text-based questions were collected from the 2017-2021 American College of Radiology’s Diagnostic Radiology In-Training (DXIT) examinations. ChatGPT-4 and Bard were queried, and their comparative accuracies, response lengths, and response times were documented. Subspecialty-specific performance was analyzed as well. Results: 318 questions were included in our analysis. ChatGPT answered significantly more accurately than Bard (87.11% vs 70.44%, P < .0001). ChatGPT’s response length was significantly shorter than Bard’s (935.28 ± 440.88 characters vs 1437.52 ± 415.91 characters, P < .0001). ChatGPT’s response time was significantly longer than Bard’s (26.79 ± 3.27 seconds vs 7.55 ± 1.88 seconds, P < .0001). ChatGPT performed superiorly to Bard in neuroradiology, (100.00% vs 86.21%, P = .03), general & physics (85.39% vs 68.54%, P < .001), nuclear medicine (80.00% vs 56.67%, P < .01), pediatric radiology (93.75% vs 68.75%, P = .03), and ultrasound (100.00% vs 63.64%, P < .001). In the remaining subspecialties, there were no significant differences between ChatGPT and Bard’s performance. Conclusion: ChatGPT displayed superior radiology knowledge compared to Bard. While both chatbots display reasonable radiology knowledge, they should be used with conscious knowledge of their limitations and fallibility. Both chatbots provided incorrect or illogical answer explanations and did not always address the educational content of the question.

Background: Natural language processing systems for data extraction from unstructured clinical text require expert-driven input for labeled annotations and model training. The natural language processing competency of large language models (LLM) can enable automated data extraction of important patient characteristics from electronic health records, which is useful for accelerating cancer clinical research and informing oncology care. Objective: This scoping review aims to map the current landscape, including definitions, frameworks, and future directions of LLMs applied to data extraction from clinical text in oncology. Methods: We queried Ovid MEDLINE for primary, peer-reviewed research studies published since 2000 on June 2, 2024, using oncology- and LLM-related keywords. This scoping review included studies that evaluated the performance of an LLM applied to data extraction from clinical text in oncology contexts. Study attributes and main outcomes were extracted to outline key trends of research in LLM-based data extraction. Results: The literature search yielded 24 studies for inclusion. The majority of studies assessed original and fine-tuned variants of the BERT LLM (n=18, 75%) followed by the Chat-GPT conversational LLM (n=6, 25%). LLMs for data extraction were commonly applied in pan-cancer clinical settings (n=11, 46%), followed by breast (n=4, 17%), and lung (n=4, 17%) cancer contexts, and were evaluated using multi-institution datasets (n=18, 75%). Comparing the studies published in 2022‐2024 versus 2019‐2021, both the total number of studies (18 vs 6) and the proportion of studies using prompt engineering increased (5/18, 28% vs 0/6, 0%), while the proportion using fine-tuning decreased (8/18, 44.4% vs 6/6, 100%). Advantages of LLMs included positive data extraction performance and reduced manual workload. Conclusions: LLMs applied to data extraction in oncology can serve as useful automated tools to reduce the administrative burden of reviewing patient health records and increase time for patient-facing care. Recent advances in prompt-engineering and fine-tuning methods, and multimodal data extraction present promising directions for future research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of LLM-enabled data extraction in clinical domains beyond the training dataset and to assess the scope and integration of LLMs into real-world clinical environments.

Background: Large language model (LLM)–based chatbots are evolving at an unprecedented pace with the release of ChatGPT, specifically GPT-3.5, and its successor, GPT-4. Their capabilities in general-purpose tasks and language generation have advanced to the point of performing excellently on various educational examination benchmarks, including medical knowledge tests. Comparing the performance of these 2 LLM models to that of Family Medicine residents on a multiple-choice medical knowledge test can provide insights into their potential as medical education tools. Objective: This study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively compare the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Family Medicine residents in a multiple-choice medical knowledge test appropriate for the level of a Family Medicine resident. Methods: An official University of Toronto Department of Family and Community Medicine Progress Test consisting of multiple-choice questions was inputted into GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. The artificial intelligence chatbot’s responses were manually reviewed to determine the selected answer, response length, response time, provision of a rationale for the outputted response, and the root cause of all incorrect responses (classified into arithmetic, logical, and information errors). The performance of the artificial intelligence chatbots were compared against a cohort of Family Medicine residents who concurrently attempted the test. Results: GPT-4 performed significantly better compared to GPT-3.5 (difference 25.0%, 95% CI 16.3%-32.8%; McNemar test: P<.001); it correctly answered 89/108 (82.4%) questions, while GPT-3.5 answered 62/108 (57.4%) questions correctly. Further, GPT-4 scored higher across all 11 categories of Family Medicine knowledge. In 86.1% (n=93) of the responses, GPT-4 provided a rationale for why other multiple-choice options were not chosen compared to the 16.7% (n=18) achieved by GPT-3.5. Qualitatively, for both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 responses, logical errors were the most common, while arithmetic errors were the least common. The average performance of Family Medicine residents was 56.9% (95% CI 56.2%-57.6%). The performance of GPT-3.5 was similar to that of the average Family Medicine resident (P=.16), while the performance of GPT-4 exceeded that of the top-performing Family Medicine resident (P<.001). Conclusions: GPT-4 significantly outperforms both GPT-3.5 and Family Medicine residents on a multiple-choice medical knowledge test designed for Family Medicine residents. GPT-4 provides a logical rationale for its response choice, ruling out other answer choices efficiently and with concise justification. Its high degree of accuracy and advanced reasoning capabilities facilitate its potential applications in medical education, including the creation of exam questions and scenarios as well as serving as a resource for medical knowledge or information on community services.

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) are comprised of regular meetings between diverse specialists working together to share clinical decision making in cancer care. The aim of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of MCC intervention on overall survival of cancer patients. A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published up to July 2023. Studies reporting on the impact of MCCs on overall survival of patients were included. A standard random effects model with the inverse-variance weighted approach was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio of mortality (MCC vs non-MCC) across studies and the heterogeneity was assessed by I². Publication bias was examined using funnel plot and Egger’s test. A total of 134,287 cancer patients from 59 studies were included in our analysis, with 48,467 managed by MCCs and 85,820 in the control arm. Across all cancer types, patients managed by MCCs had an increased overall survival compared to control patients (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.62, 0.71], I²=84%). Median survival time was 30.2 months and 19.0 months in the MCC intervention and control group, respectively. In subgroup analysis, a positive effect of MCC intervention on overall survival was found in breast, colorectal, esophageal, haematological, hepatocellular, lung, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer. Overall, our meta-analysis found a significant positive effect of MCCs compared to controls. Further studies are needed to establish nuanced guidelines when optimizing MCC integration for treating diverse cancer patient populations.