Clinical Reliability of Large Language Models in Complex Haematology: A Multidimensional Evaluation in Hemophilia–Oncology

Background: The co-existence of hemophilia and cancer presents one of the most complex clinical scenarios, demanding individualised therapeutic planning to balance oncologic efficacy and hemostatic safety. This study evaluated the ability of two Large Language Models (LLMs)—ChatGPT (GPT-4) and Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4–based)—to generate clinically appropriate recommendations for real cases of hemophilia with concurrent malignancy. Methods: Six consecutive adult cases of hemophilia and cancer, managed at the Hemophilia Centre of Padua, Italy, were selected for evaluation. Identical structured prompts were submitted to both LLMs. Two independent expert clinicians rated the model outputs across five domains (Decision/Rationale, Strategy, Selected Drug, Regimen, and Assessment) using a four-level ordinal scale. Results: LLMs demonstrated uneven performances. Outputs were consistently rated as highly reliable in domains involving high-level synthesis, such as Assessment and Strategy. However, substantial limitations were observed in the clinically demanding domains of Selected Drug and Regimen. Critically, in the Selected Drug domain, there was complete agreement between the two expert raters for neither system. This severe lack of concordance signifies that clinicians assigned different adequacy ratings to the same output in every case, reflecting ambiguity, lack of specificity, and inconsistent clinical interpretability of the drug-related information provided by LLMs. Conclusions: While LLMs possess the capacity for high-level reasoning and strategic planning, their inability to translate principles into precise, consistent, and clinically interpretable therapeutic plans—particularly regarding drug selection and treatment regimens—is a significant constraint. These deficiencies, highlighted by the minimal expert concordance in critical domains, necessitate rigorous clinical validation before the responsible integration of LLMs into the management of this uniquely vulnerable patient population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Hemato
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/hemato7020010
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical Reliability of Large Language Models in Complex Haematology: A Multidimensional Evaluation in Hemophilia–Oncology

Ezio Zanon, Stefano Bonassi, Fabrizio Maturo, Annamaria Porreca et al.
Hemato
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Clinical Reliability of Large Language Models in Complex Haematology: A Multidimensional Evaluation in Hemophilia–Oncology

Ezio Zanon, Stefano Bonassi, Fabrizio Maturo, Annamaria Porreca, Stefania Proietti
article en

Abstract

Background: The co-existence of hemophilia and cancer presents one of the most complex clinical scenarios, demanding individualised therapeutic planning to balance oncologic efficacy and hemostatic safety. This study evaluated the ability of two Large Language Models (LLMs)—ChatGPT (GPT-4) and Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4–based)—to generate clinically appropriate recommendations for real cases of hemophilia with concurrent malignancy. Methods: Six consecutive adult cases of hemophilia and cancer, managed at the Hemophilia Centre of Padua, Italy, were selected for evaluation. Identical structured prompts were submitted to both LLMs. Two independent expert clinicians rated the model outputs across five domains (Decision/Rationale, Strategy, Selected Drug, Regimen, and Assessment) using a four-level ordinal scale. Results: LLMs demonstrated uneven performances. Outputs were consistently rated as highly reliable in domains involving high-level synthesis, such as Assessment and Strategy. However, substantial limitations were observed in the clinically demanding domains of Selected Drug and Regimen. Critically, in the Selected Drug domain, there was complete agreement between the two expert raters for neither system. This severe lack of concordance signifies that clinicians assigned different adequacy ratings to the same output in every case, reflecting ambiguity, lack of specificity, and inconsistent clinical interpretability of the drug-related information provided by LLMs. Conclusions: While LLMs possess the capacity for high-level reasoning and strategic planning, their inability to translate principles into precise, consistent, and clinically interpretable therapeutic plans—particularly regarding drug selection and treatment regimens—is a significant constraint. These deficiencies, highlighted by the minimal expert concordance in critical domains, necessitate rigorous clinical validation before the responsible integration of LLMs into the management of this uniquely vulnerable patient population.

HematoVol. 7(2)
University of Padua (IT), San Raffaele University of Rome (IT), Mercatorum University (IT), Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IT), European Automobile Manufacturers Association (BE)
Ministero della Salute
Openalex Percentile: Top 36%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.