Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39266750›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 Surgery2025

Prediction of tumor board procedural recommendations using large language models.

Marc Aubreville, Jonathan Ganz, Jonas Ammeling, Emely Rosbach, Thomas Gehrke, Agmal Scherzad, Stephan Hackenberg, Miguel Goncalves

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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AI-assisted tumor board decision-making in pancreatic oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Marc AubrevilleFlensburg University of Applied Sciences, Flensburg, Germany. marc.aubreville@hs-flensburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5294-5247
Jonathan GanzTechnische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.
Jonas AmmelingTechnische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.
Emely RosbachTechnische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.
Thomas GehrkeDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Agmal ScherzadDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Stephan HackenbergDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Miguel GoncalvesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

Funding

Bayerisches Forschungsinstitut für Digitale Transformation ReGInABayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst LFP-Projekt FOKUS-TML
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMultidisciplinary tumor boards are meetings where a team of medical specialists, including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, surgeons, and pathologists, collaborate to determine the best treatment plan for cancer patients. While decision-making in this context is logistically and cost-intensive, it has a significant positive effect on overall cancer survival.

methodsWe evaluated the quality and accuracy of predictions by several large language models for recommending procedures by a Head and Neck Oncology tumor board, which we adapted for the task using parameter-efficient fine-tuning or in-context learning. Records were divided into two sets: n=229 used for training and n=100 records for validation of our approaches. Randomized, blinded, manual human expert classification was used to evaluate the different models.

resultsTreatment line congruence varied depending on the model, reaching up to 86%, with medically justifiable recommendations up to 98%. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning yielded better outcomes than in-context learning, and larger/commercial models tend to perform better.

conclusionProviding precise, medically justifiable procedural recommendations for complex oncology patients is feasible. Extending the data corpus to a larger patient cohort and incorporating the latest guidelines, assuming the model can handle sufficient context length, could result in more factual and guideline-aligned responses and is anticipated to enhance model performance. We, therefore, encourage further research in this direction to improve the efficacy and reliability of large language models as support in medical decision-making processes.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingHead and Neck NeoplasmsMedical OncologyHumansLarge Language ModelsArtificial IntelligenceHead and Neck OncologyLarge Language ModelsTumor Board

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.