Leveraging Large Language Models for Improved Understanding of Communications With Patients With Cancer in a Call Center Setting: Proof-of-Concept Study

Abstract

Background Hospital call centers play a critical role in providing support and information to patients with cancer, making it crucial to effectively identify and understand patient intent during consultations. However, operational efficiency and standardization of telephone consultations, particularly when categorizing diverse patient inquiries, remain significant challenges. While traditional deep learning models like long short-term memory (LSTM) and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) have been used to address these issues, they heavily depend on annotated datasets, which are labor-intensive and time-consuming to generate. Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4, with their in-context learning capabilities, offer a promising alternative for classifying patient intent without requiring extensive retraining. Objective This study evaluates the performance of GPT-4 in classifying the purpose of telephone consultations of patients with cancer. In addition, it compares the performance of GPT-4 to that of discriminative models, such as LSTM and BERT, with a particular focus on their ability to manage ambiguous and complex queries. Methods We used a dataset of 430,355 sentences from telephone consultations with patients with cancer between 2016 and 2020. LSTM and BERT models were trained on 300,000 sentences using supervised learning, while GPT-4 was applied using zero-shot and few-shot approaches without explicit retraining. The accuracy of each model was compared using 1,000 randomly selected sentences from 2020 onward, with special attention paid to how each model handled ambiguous or uncertain queries. Results GPT-4, which uses only a few examples (a few shots), attained a remarkable accuracy of 85.2%, considerably outperforming the LSTM and BERT models, which achieved accuracies of 73.7% and 71.3%, respectively. Notably, categories such as “Treatment,” “Rescheduling,” and “Symptoms” involve multiple contexts and exhibit significant complexity. GPT-4 demonstrated more than 15% superior performance in handling ambiguous queries in these categories. In addition, GPT-4 excelled in categories like “Records” and “Routine,” where contextual clues were clear, outperforming the discriminative models. These findings emphasize the potential of LLMs, particularly GPT-4, for interpreting complicated patient interactions during cancer-related telephone consultations. Conclusions This study shows the potential of GPT-4 to significantly improve the classification of patient intent in cancer-related telephone oncological consultations. GPT-4’s ability to handle complex and ambiguous queries without extensive retraining provides a substantial advantage over discriminative models like LSTM and BERT. While GPT-4 demonstrates strong performance in various areas, further refinement of prompt design and category definitions is necessary to fully leverage its capabilities in practical health care applications. Future research will explore the integration of LLMs like GPT-4 into hybrid systems that combine human oversight with artificial intelligence–driven technologies.