Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37991498›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Accuracy of ChatGPT in head and neck oncological board decisions: preliminary findings.

Jerome R Lechien, Carlos-Miguel Chiesa-Estomba, Robin Baudouin, Stéphane Hans

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Clinical decision support using large language models in otolaryngology: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessing the accuracy of the GPT-4 model in multidisciplinary tumor board decision prediction.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Article
  10. ChatGPT versus DeepSeek in head and neck cancer staging and treatment planning: guideline-based study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Assessment of decision-making with locally run and web-based large language models versus human board recommendations in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  17. Chasing sleep physicians: ChatGPT-4o on the interpretation of polysomnographic results.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jerome R Lechien *Research Committee of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France. Jerome.Lechien@umons.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0845-0845
Carlos-Miguel Chiesa-Estomba *Research Committee of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.
Robin BaudouinResearch Committee of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.
Stéphane HansResearch Committee of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the ChatGPT-4 performance in oncological board decisions.

methodsTwenty medical records of patients with head and neck cancer were evaluated by ChatGPT-4 for additional examinations, management, and therapeutic approaches. The ChatGPT-4 propositions were assessed with the Artificial Intelligence Performance Instrument. The stability of ChatGPT-4 was evaluated through regenerated answers at 1-day interval.

resultsChatGPT-4 provided adequate explanations for cTNM staging in 19 cases (95%). ChatGPT-4 proposed a significant higher number of additional examinations than practitioners (72 versus 103; p = 0.001). ChatGPT-4 indications of endoscopy-biopsy, HPV research, ultrasonography, and PET-CT were consistent with the oncological board decisions. The therapeutic propositions of ChatGPT-4 were accurate in 13 cases (65%). Most additional examination and primary treatment propositions were consistent throughout regenerated response process.

conclusionsChatGPT-4 may be an adjunctive theoretical tool in oncological board simple decisions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyBiopsyHeadHumansNeckArtificial intelligenceChatGPTDecisionGPTHead neck surgeryOtolaryngologyPerformance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.