Abstract 2745: Patients prefer ChatGPT to physician responses in cancer communication.

Abstract Introduction Large language models like ChatGPT (GPT) are increasingly utilized by patients and physicians yet it is unknown whether either group prefers the output of GPT compared to physician-authored content. This study evaluated how patients and physicians perceive and compare ChatGPT-generated versus physician-authored recommendations. Methods We surveyed 51 adult female breast cancer patients and 15 physicians at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center to compare their evaluations of GPT versus physician-authored responses to four cancer scenarios related to treatment, family dynamics and employment. Each scenario included two blinded, responses to the same question—one from GPT and one from a physician. Participants rated each on 7-point Likert scales for helpfulness, empathy, and informativeness and indicated their preferred response (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). The primary outcome was the proportion preferring GPT (binomial test vs 50%); secondary outcomes were within-subject Likert differences (Δ = GPT - physician) analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results Among 66 participants (51 patients; 15 physicians), patients preferred GPT 71/104 (68.3%, p = 0.00025), while physicians preferred GPT 31/52 (59.6%, p = 0.21), with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.82). Preferences varied by scenario: patients showed no significant differences in S1 or S2 (52.6% and 58.6% preferring GPT; both p > 0.45), strongly favored GPT in S3 (85.7%, p = 0.00018), and significantly favored GPT in S4 (71.4%, p = 0.036). Physician preference for GPT was near equipoise for all scenarios (36.4-75.0%, all p ≥ 0.15). Patient ratings favored GPT for helpfulness (Δ = −0.36, p = 0.009), empathy (Δ = −0.46, p = 0.009), and informativeness (Δ = −0.42, p = 0.013). Physician ratings showed no significant differences for helpfulness (Δ = −0.10, p = 0.59) or informativeness (Δ = +0.18, p = 0.57), with a trend toward higher empathy for GPT (Δ = −0.44, p = 0.058). Conclusion Patients showed a strong overall preference for GPT-generated recommendations, with scenario-specific differences. Physicians demonstrated a smaller, nonsignificant preference for GPT. While ratings were numerically close for all domains, patients consistently judged GPT responses as more helpful, empathetic, and informative, whereas physicians rated the two sources similarly. These findings suggest that physicians could combine GPT-generated responses preferred by patients with their own recommendations to improve clinical communication. Citation Format: Aaron Segura, Bernard Tawfik, Ben Liem, Zoneddy Dayao, David Y. Lee, Jacklyn M. Nemunaitis, David Savage, Moises Harari-Turquie, Nicole Hill, Charles Foucar, Amy Tarnower, Dulcinea Quintana, Jude Khatib, Thomas Schroeder, Martha Mapalo, Yolanda Sanchez, Ramesh Gopal, . Patients prefer ChatGPT to physician responses in cancer communication [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2745.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancer Research
Published
2026-04-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2026-2745
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 2745: Patients prefer ChatGPT to physician responses in cancer communication.

Zoneddy Dayao, Bernard Tawfik, Charles Foucar, David J. Savage et al.
Cancer Research
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Abstract 2745: Patients prefer ChatGPT to physician responses in cancer communication.

Zoneddy Dayao, Bernard Tawfik, Charles Foucar, David J. Savage, Moises Harari-Turquie, Jacklyn Nemunaitis, Martha Tendai Mapalo, Ramesh Gopal, Jude Khatib, Aaron Segura, Amy Tarnower, Dulcinea Quintana, David Y. Lee, Nicole Hill, Thomas Schroeder, Ben Liem
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Large language models like ChatGPT (GPT) are increasingly utilized by patients and physicians yet it is unknown whether either group prefers the output of GPT compared to physician-authored content. This study evaluated how patients and physicians perceive and compare ChatGPT-generated versus physician-authored recommendations. Methods We surveyed 51 adult female breast cancer patients and 15 physicians at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center to compare their evaluations of GPT versus physician-authored responses to four cancer scenarios related to treatment, family dynamics and employment. Each scenario included two blinded, responses to the same question—one from GPT and one from a physician. Participants rated each on 7-point Likert scales for helpfulness, empathy, and informativeness and indicated their preferred response (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). The primary outcome was the proportion preferring GPT (binomial test vs 50%); secondary outcomes were within-subject Likert differences (Δ = GPT - physician) analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results Among 66 participants (51 patients; 15 physicians), patients preferred GPT 71/104 (68.3%, p = 0.00025), while physicians preferred GPT 31/52 (59.6%, p = 0.21), with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.82). Preferences varied by scenario: patients showed no significant differences in S1 or S2 (52.6% and 58.6% preferring GPT; both p > 0.45), strongly favored GPT in S3 (85.7%, p = 0.00018), and significantly favored GPT in S4 (71.4%, p = 0.036). Physician preference for GPT was near equipoise for all scenarios (36.4-75.0%, all p ≥ 0.15). Patient ratings favored GPT for helpfulness (Δ = −0.36, p = 0.009), empathy (Δ = −0.46, p = 0.009), and informativeness (Δ = −0.42, p = 0.013). Physician ratings showed no significant differences for helpfulness (Δ = −0.10, p = 0.59) or informativeness (Δ = +0.18, p = 0.57), with a trend toward higher empathy for GPT (Δ = −0.44, p = 0.058). Conclusion Patients showed a strong overall preference for GPT-generated recommendations, with scenario-specific differences. Physicians demonstrated a smaller, nonsignificant preference for GPT. While ratings were numerically close for all domains, patients consistently judged GPT responses as more helpful, empathetic, and informative, whereas physicians rated the two sources similarly. These findings suggest that physicians could combine GPT-generated responses preferred by patients with their own recommendations to improve clinical communication. Citation Format: Aaron Segura, Bernard Tawfik, Ben Liem, Zoneddy Dayao, David Y. Lee, Jacklyn M. Nemunaitis, David Savage, Moises Harari-Turquie, Nicole Hill, Charles Foucar, Amy Tarnower, Dulcinea Quintana, Jude Khatib, Thomas Schroeder, Martha Mapalo, Yolanda Sanchez, Ramesh Gopal, . Patients prefer ChatGPT to physician responses in cancer communication [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2745.

Cancer ResearchVol. 86(7_Supplement)
University of New Mexico (US), New Mexico Cancer Center (US), UNM Comprehensive Cancer Center
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
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.