Benchmarking GPT-5 in Radiation Oncology: Measurable Gains, but Persistent Need for Expert Oversight

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21777v1
• Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 16:55:25 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking GPT-5 in Radiation Oncology: Measurable Gains, but Persistent Need for Expert Oversight
• Authors: Ugur Dinc, Jibak Sarkar, Philipp Schubert, Sabine Semrau, Thomas Weissmann, Andre Karius, Johann Brand, Bernd-Niklas Axer, Ahmed Gomaa, Pluvio Stephan, Ishita Sheth, Sogand Beirami, Annette Schwarz, Udo Gaipl, Benjamin Frey, Christoph Bert, Stefanie Corradini, Rainer Fietkau, Florian Putz,
• Abstract summary: GPT-5 is a large language model that has been specifically marketed towards oncology use.<n>On the TXIT benchmark, GPT-5 achieved a mean accuracy of 92.8%, outperforming GPT-4 (78.8%) and GPT-3.5 (62.1%)<n>In the vignette evaluation, GPT-5's treatment recommendations were rated highly for correctness (mean 3.24/4, 95% CI: 3.11-3.38) and comprehensiveness (3.59/4, 95% CI: 3.49-3.69)<n>While hallucinations were infrequent, the presence of substantive errors underscores that GPT-5-generated recommendations require rigorous expert oversight before clinical implementation
• Score: 1.0471566053937098
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Introduction: Large language models (LLM) have shown great potential in clinical decision support. GPT-5 is a novel LLM system that has been specifically marketed towards oncology use. Methods: Performance was assessed using two complementary benchmarks: (i) the ACR Radiation Oncology In-Training Examination (TXIT, 2021), comprising 300 multiple-choice items, and (ii) a curated set of 60 authentic radiation oncologic vignettes representing diverse disease sites and treatment indications. For the vignette evaluation, GPT-5 was instructed to generate concise therapeutic plans. Four board-certified radiation oncologists rated correctness, comprehensiveness, and hallucinations. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using Fleiss' \k{appa}. Results: On the TXIT benchmark, GPT-5 achieved a mean accuracy of 92.8%, outperforming GPT-4 (78.8%) and GPT-3.5 (62.1%). Domain-specific gains were most pronounced in Dose and Diagnosis. In the vignette evaluation, GPT-5's treatment recommendations were rated highly for correctness (mean 3.24/4, 95% CI: 3.11-3.38) and comprehensiveness (3.59/4, 95% CI: 3.49-3.69). Hallucinations were rare with no case reaching majority consensus for their presence. Inter-rater agreement was low (Fleiss' \k{appa} 0.083 for correctness), reflecting inherent variability in clinical judgment. Errors clustered in complex scenarios requiring precise trial knowledge or detailed clinical adaptation. Discussion: GPT-5 clearly outperformed prior model variants on the radiation oncology multiple-choice benchmark. Although GPT-5 exhibited favorable performance in generating real-world radiation oncology treatment recommendations, correctness ratings indicate room for further improvement. While hallucinations were infrequent, the presence of substantive errors underscores that GPT-5-generated recommendations require rigorous expert oversight before clinical implementation.

Related papers

• Evaluating GPT-5 as a Multimodal Clinical Reasoner: A Landscape Commentary [36.736436091313585]
  This commentary is the first controlled, cross-sectional evaluation of the GPT-5 family (GPT-5, GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5 Nano) against its predecessor GPT-4o.<n> GPT-5 demonstrated substantial gains in expert-level textual reasoning, with absolute improvements exceeding 25 percentage-points on MedXpertQA.<n>When tasked with multimodal synthesis, GPT-5 effectively leveraged this enhanced reasoning capacity to ground uncertain clinical narratives in concrete imaging evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T03:24:48Z)
• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• A DeepSeek-Powered AI System for Automated Chest Radiograph Interpretation in Clinical Practice [83.11942224668127]
  Janus-Pro-CXR (1B) is a chest X-ray interpretation system based on DeepSeek Janus-Pro model.<n>Our system outperforms state-of-the-art X-ray report generation models in automated report generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T13:26:13Z)
• Boosting Pathology Foundation Models via Few-shot Prompt-tuning for Rare Cancer Subtyping [80.92960114162746]
  We propose PathPT, a novel framework that exploits the potential of vision-language pathology foundation models.<n>PathPT converts WSI-level supervision into fine-grained tile-level guidance by leveraging the zero-shot capabilities of VL models.<n>Results show that PathPT consistently delivers superior performance, achieving substantial gains in subtyping accuracy and cancerous region grounding ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T18:04:41Z)
• Is ChatGPT-5 Ready for Mammogram VQA? [4.156123728258067]
  GPT-5 consistently was the best performing model but lagged behind both human experts and domain-specific fine-tuned models.<n>While GPT-5 exhibits promising capabilities for screening tasks, its performance remains insufficient for high-stakes clinical imaging applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T17:56:24Z)
• Benchmarking GPT-5 for Zero-Shot Multimodal Medical Reasoning in Radiology and Radiation Oncology [4.156123728258067]
  We present a zero-shot evaluation of GPT-5 and its smaller variants (GPT-5-mini, GPT-5-nano) against GPT-4o across three representative tasks.<n>Across all datasets, GPT-5 achieved the highest accuracy, with substantial gains over GPT-4o up to +200% in challenging anatomical regions.<n>GPT-5 delivers consistent and often pronounced performance improvements over GPT-4o in both image-grounded reasoning and domain-specific numerical problem-solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T16:14:51Z)
• Performance of GPT-5 Frontier Models in Ophthalmology Question Answering [6.225411871775591]
  Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-5 integrate advanced reasoning capabilities that may improve performance on medical question-answering tasks.<n>We evaluated 12 configurations of OpenAI's GPT-5 series alongside o1-high, o3-high, and GPT-4o.<n> GPT-5-high ranked first in both accuracy (1.66x stronger than o3-high) and rationale quality (1.11x stronger than o3-high)<n>These results benchmark GPT-5 on a high-quality ophthalmology dataset, demonstrate the influence of reasoning effort on accuracy, and introduce an autograder framework for scalable evaluation of
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T17:17:17Z)
• MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks [47.486705282473984]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical exams.<n>These evaluations inadequately reflect complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice.<n>We introduce MedHELM, an evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T22:55:49Z)
• A Systematic Evaluation of GPT-4V's Multimodal Capability for Medical Image Analysis [87.25494411021066]
  GPT-4V's multimodal capability for medical image analysis is evaluated. It is found that GPT-4V excels in understanding medical images and generates high-quality radiology reports. It is found that its performance for medical visual grounding needs to be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T11:39:09Z)
• Exploring the Boundaries of GPT-4 in Radiology [46.30976153809968]
  GPT-4 has a sufficient level of radiology knowledge with only occasional errors in complex context. For findings summarisation, GPT-4 outputs are found to be overall comparable with existing manually-written impressions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T05:13:03Z)
• Beyond the Hype: Assessing the Performance, Trustworthiness, and Clinical Suitability of GPT3.5 [0.37501702548174976]
  We present an approach to evaluate the performance and trustworthiness of a GPT3.5 model for medical image protocol assignment. We compare it with a fine-tuned BERT model and a radiologist. Our findings suggest that the GPT3.5 performance falls behind BERT and a radiologist.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T03:03:51Z)
• Comparison of Machine Learning Classifiers to Predict Patient Survival and Genetics of GBM: Towards a Standardized Model for Clinical Implementation [44.02622933605018]
  Radiomic models have been shown to outperform clinical data for outcome prediction in glioblastoma (GBM) We aimed to compare nine machine learning classifiers to predict overall survival (OS), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation, O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) VII amplification and Ki-67 expression in GBM patients. xGB obtained maximum accuracy for OS (74.5%), AB for IDH mutation (88%), MGMT methylation (71,7%), Ki-67 expression (86,6%), and EGFR amplification (81,
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-10T15:10:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.