ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Assessing the role of advanced artificial intelligence as a tool in multidisciplinary tumor board decision-making for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer cases - the first study on ChatGPT 4o and a comparison to ChatGPT 4.0.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications of large language models in tumor boards: a systematic review.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing the performance of three large language models in thyroid cancer tumour board decision-making.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary tumor board decisions and artificial intelligence-generated recommendations in general surgery: a retrospective observational study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Challenges in AI Based Tumor Board Case Summarization and Recommendations.Research square · 2026Article
- Assessment of Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Decision-Making: A Retrospective Single-Center Comparison of Guideline-Integrated General-Purpose vs. Domain-Specialized Models.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence agents in cancer research and oncology.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- AI-assisted tumor board decision-making in pancreatic oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence as a Decision-Support Tool in Urological Tumor Boards: A Study in Real Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Cautionary lessons from real-world testing of GPT-4.1 AI for pediatric foreign body aspiration.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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Replacing Multidisciplinary Team Meetings With Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Review
- Chatbot assistance in precision oncology treatment decision-making.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Chat GPT Performance in Multi-Disciplinary Boards-Should AI Be a Member of Cancer Boards?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evolving Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the Crossroads: Potentiating Productive vs. Declining Disruptive Cancer Research.Cancers · 2024Article
- Review
- Assistive, not autonomous: Generative artificial intelligence in head and neck cancer care - A scoping review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is characterized by a complex therapeutic management that needs to be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT). While artificial intelligence (AI) improved significantly to assist healthcare professionals in making informed treatment decisions for primary cases, an application in the even more complex recurrent/metastatic setting has not been evaluated yet. This study also represents the first evaluation of the recently published LLM ChatGPT 4o, compared to ChatGPT 4.0 for providing therapy recommendations. Methods: The therapy recommendations for 100 HNSCC cases generated by each LLM, 50 cases of recurrence and 50 cases of distant metastasis were evaluated by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome measured was the quality of the therapy recommendations measured by the following parameters: clinical recommendation, explanation, and summarization. Results: In this study, ChatGPT 4o and 4.0 provided mostly general answers for surgery, palliative care, or systemic therapy. ChatGPT 4o proved to be 48.5% faster than ChatGPT 4.0. For clinical recommendation, explanation, and summarization both LLMs obtained high scores in terms of performance of therapy recommendations, with no significant differences between both LLMs, but demonstrated to be mostly an assisting tool, requiring validation by an experienced clinician due to a lack of transparency and sometimes recommending treatment modalities that are not part of the current treatment guidelines. Conclusion: This research demonstrates that ChatGPT 4o and 4.0 share a similar performance, while ChatGPT 4o is significantly faster. Since the current versions cannot tailor therapy recommendations, and sometimes recommend incorrect treatment options and lack information on the source material, advanced AI models at the moment can merely assist in the MDT setting for recurrent/metastatic HNSCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.