Benchmark evaluation of large language models in acute myeloid leukemia prognosis

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a highly heterogeneous malignancy requiring accurate prediction of treatment response and relapse risk. Despite advances in genomics, complex mutation patterns limit prognostic precision. Large language models (LLMs) show promise in healthcare but their utility in AML outcome prediction remains unexplored. Methods: We curated multimodal data from 684 newly diagnosed de novo AML patients (mean age 54±16 years) at Zhejiang University Hospital from 2019 to 2022, encompassing demographics, blood counts, genomics (43 fusions and 138 mutations), cytogenetics, treatments, and outcomes. Five state-of-the-art LLMs (Kimi, Qwen, SparkDesk, ChatGPT, DeepSeek) were evaluated using structured prompts for three tasks: 1. Treatment response prediction (remission: CRc vs non-CRc); 2. Relapse risk prediction; 3. Prognostic feature ranking. Performance was assessed via accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and cosine similarity against expert judgments. Results: In treatment response, ChatGPT (with O1) achieved highest accuracy (72.22%) and F1-score (82.01%), while Kimi performed poorest (57.89% accuracy). Whereas in relapse prediction, SparkDesk had highest accuracy (58.77%), but all models showed low precision (26.36–30.74%) and high false-positive rates (F1-score: 33.49% for SparkDesk). Notably, in feature ranking, LLMs aligned closely with experts (cosine similarity >0.85). Top-ranked features (e.g., TP53 mutation, CBFB::MYH11 fusion, chromosome 7/17 abnormalities) showed significant differences between CRc and non-CRc groups (p<0.001). However, LLMs overvalued non-discriminative features (e.g., WBC, FCM) compared to experts. Conclusions: Current LLMs demonstrate insufficient reliability for independent AML outcome prediction (relapse accuracy ≤58.77%). However, their robust capability in identifying clinically relevant prognostic features supports their potential as adjunctive tools to augment decision-making in hematologic malignancies. Future integration of longitudinal data and domain-specific fine-tuning may enhance clinical utility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2025-7954
Primary Topic
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmark evaluation of large language models in acute myeloid leukemia prognosis

Jie Jin, Wanzhuo Xie, Yinjun Lou, Shengli Xue et al.
Blood
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
article

Benchmark evaluation of large language models in acute myeloid leukemia prognosis

Jie Jin, Wanzhuo Xie, Yinjun Lou, Shengli Xue, Nanfang Zhuo, Liping Mao, Yu Zhu, Xiangjie Lin, Jun Wang, Huafeng Wang, Yujia Wang, Di Xu, Jian Huang, Hongyan Tong, Haitao Meng, Jingrui Jin, Min Yang
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a highly heterogeneous malignancy requiring accurate prediction of treatment response and relapse risk. Despite advances in genomics, complex mutation patterns limit prognostic precision. Large language models (LLMs) show promise in healthcare but their utility in AML outcome prediction remains unexplored. Methods: We curated multimodal data from 684 newly diagnosed de novo AML patients (mean age 54±16 years) at Zhejiang University Hospital from 2019 to 2022, encompassing demographics, blood counts, genomics (43 fusions and 138 mutations), cytogenetics, treatments, and outcomes. Five state-of-the-art LLMs (Kimi, Qwen, SparkDesk, ChatGPT, DeepSeek) were evaluated using structured prompts for three tasks: 1. Treatment response prediction (remission: CRc vs non-CRc); 2. Relapse risk prediction; 3. Prognostic feature ranking. Performance was assessed via accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and cosine similarity against expert judgments. Results: In treatment response, ChatGPT (with O1) achieved highest accuracy (72.22%) and F1-score (82.01%), while Kimi performed poorest (57.89% accuracy). Whereas in relapse prediction, SparkDesk had highest accuracy (58.77%), but all models showed low precision (26.36–30.74%) and high false-positive rates (F1-score: 33.49% for SparkDesk). Notably, in feature ranking, LLMs aligned closely with experts (cosine similarity >0.85). Top-ranked features (e.g., TP53 mutation, CBFB::MYH11 fusion, chromosome 7/17 abnormalities) showed significant differences between CRc and non-CRc groups (p<0.001). However, LLMs overvalued non-discriminative features (e.g., WBC, FCM) compared to experts. Conclusions: Current LLMs demonstrate insufficient reliability for independent AML outcome prediction (relapse accuracy ≤58.77%). However, their robust capability in identifying clinically relevant prognostic features supports their potential as adjunctive tools to augment decision-making in hematologic malignancies. Future integration of longitudinal data and domain-specific fine-tuning may enhance clinical utility.

BloodVol. 146(Supplement 1)
Soochow University (CN), Institute of Computing Technology (CN), Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province (CN), Zhejiang Lab (CN), Hangzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (CN), First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN), Hangzhou Dianzi University (CN), Nanjing Medical University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.