Author
Listed:
- Yuntao Wang
- Mariluz De Ornelas
- Matthew T Studenski
- Elizabeth Bossart
- Siamak P Nejad-Davarani
- Yunze Yang
Abstract
We investigated the potential utility of large language models (LLMs) in supporting patient safety efforts. Specifically, we evaluated the reasoning capabilities of LLMs in performing root cause analysis (RCA) of radiation oncology incidents using narrative reports from the Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). We prompted four state-of-the-art LLMs, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, o3, and Grok 3, with the “Background and Incident Overview” sections from 19 publicly available RO-ILS cases. Each model was instructed to perform RCA and generate root causes, lessons learned, and suggested actions using a standardized prompt based on AAPM RCA guidelines. Model outputs were evaluated using a combination of objective semantic similarity metrics (cosine similarity via Sentence Transformer), semi-subjective assessments (precision, recall, F1-score, expert-adjudicated PPV (Positive Predictive Value), hallucination rate and performance criteria including relevance, comprehensiveness, quality of justification and quality of solution), and subjective ratings (reasoning quality and overall performance) by five board-certified medical physicists. LLMs demonstrated satisfactory performance across evaluation metrics. All models exhibited some degree of hallucination, ranging from 11% to 61%. All the evaluated LLMs demonstrated comparable baseline capabilities in objective causal extraction, and Gemini 2.5 Pro exhibited the highest overall performance score among 4 models. Statistically significant differences were observed among models in expert-adjudicated PPV, hallucination rate, and subjective ratings (p
Suggested Citation
Yuntao Wang & Mariluz De Ornelas & Matthew T Studenski & Elizabeth Bossart & Siamak P Nejad-Davarani & Yunze Yang, 2026.
"Augmenting patient safety surveillance in radiation oncology with large language model-based root cause analysis: A proof-of-concept study,"
PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-18, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001740
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001740
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001740. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.