Physician and AI Responses to Cancer Questions (2025)

FAQs

Physician and AI Responses to Cancer Questions? ›

Study benchmarks observed that chatbot 1, chatbot 2, and chatbot 3 can provide quality, empathetic, and readable responses to patients' cancer questions compared with physician responses in a public online forum; this result is consistent with previous findings in the general medicine setting.

An AI tool may spot prostate cancer with 84% accuracy, according to a UCLA research, outperforming doctors who had a 67% accuracy rate. Unfold AI, an AI program created by Avenda Health, visualizes the possibility of cancer by analyzing clinical data using an algorithm.

Results from two studies have found that, although AI chatbots can gather cancer information from reputable sources, their responses to questions about treatment and other topics can include errors and omissions.

The AI model recognizes patterns that represent cells and tissue types and the way those components interact,” better enabling the pathologist to assess the cancer risk. The AI “doesn't say there's no chance of this being cancer,” Margolies says of an AI-assisted mammogram.

Outcomes: The chatbot's responses were preferred to those of the physician and rated significantly higher in quality and empathy. In 78.6%, the chatbot's responses were considered to be better than the doctor's. More specifically, the doctors' answers were significantly shorter than the chatbot's answers (52 words vs.

The detection and diagnosis of malignant tumors with the help of AI seems to be feasible and accurate with the use of different technologies, such as CAD systems, deep and machine learning algorithms and radiomic analysis when compared with the traditional model, although these technologies are not capable of to ...

However, data-related concerns and human biases that seep into algorithms during development and post-deployment phases affect performance in real-world settings, limiting the utility and safety of AI technology in oncology clinics.

ChatGPT achieved more than 50% accuracy across all US Medical Licensing Examination exams (MedRXIV)

If AI algorithms are biased or used in a malicious manner — such as in the form of deliberate disinformation campaigns or autonomous lethal weapons — they could cause significant harm toward humans.

How accurate is AI in diagnosing patients? ›

—How does artificial intelligence work? The study analyzed responses by 457 clinicians who diagnosed at least one fictional patient; 418 diagnosed all nine. Without an AI helper, the clinicians' diagnoses were accurate about 73% of the time. With the standard, unbiased AI, this percentage jumped to 75.9%.

Pathologists trained to scrutinise tumour slides to determine the type of cancer and stage find that AI can now tell you not only the type and stage, but can also molecularly classify the cancer and suggest treatment decisions and other clinical management decisions based on that.

In 2023, the software solutions segment led the global AI in cancer market, capturing a 58% market share. The breast cancer segment is the largest user of AI-based solutions for early diagnosis and treatment, holding a 41% share.

WEISSMAN: ChatGPT should not be used to support clinical decision-making. There is no evidence that it is safe, equitable or effective for this purpose. As far as I know, there is also no authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for its use in this way.

The AI system matched or surpassed the physicians' diagnostic accuracy in all six medical specialties considered.

The questionnaires indicated that ChatGPT is able to interpret the emotions of others and take their perspective but still has some difficulties showing a higher level of empathy compared to healthy humans.

The AI system matched or surpassed the physicians' diagnostic accuracy in all six medical specialties considered. The bot outperformed physicians in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explaining the condition and treatment, coming across as honest, and expressing care and commitment.

The average agreement rate for half of all presenting symptoms was greater than or equal to 90 percent overall. In cases where adjudication was necessary, the consensus diagnosis—reached in 58.2 percent of cases—was always present in the AI's differential diagnosis.

The first large, rigorous studies testing AI-assisted radiologists against those working alone give hints at the potential improvements. Initial results from a Swedish study of 80,000 women showed that AI-supported breast screening detected 20 per cent more cancers compared to two radiologists.

In particular, MRI scans, CT scans and blood tests are often the preferred choices to detect cancer because of their accuracy, low risk levels, and reliability.