ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2024
Artificial Intelligence can Facilitate Application of Risk Stratification Algorithms to Bladder Cancer Patient Case Scenarios.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Treatment Decision-Making: An Evaluation of the Performance of ChatGPT Versus the Heart Team in Coronary Revascularization.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Comment on: "Artificial Intelligence Can Facilitate Application of Risk Stratification Algorithms to Bladder Cancer Patient Case Scenarios".Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has previously been shown to accurately predict colon cancer screening intervals when provided with clinical data and context in the form of guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Methods: Thirty-six hypothetical patient scenarios related to NMIBC were created and submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 at two separate time points. First, both models were prompted to risk stratify patients without any additional context provided. Custom instructions were then provided as textual context using the written versions of the NMIBC NCCN Results: GPT-3.5 correctly risk stratified 68% (24.5 of 36) of scenarios without context, slightly increasing to 74% (26.5 of 36) with textual context. Using GPT-4, the model had accuracy of 83% (30 of 36) without context, reaching 100% (36 of 36) with textual context ( Conclusions: GPT-4 can accurately risk stratify patients with respect to NMIBC when provided with context containing guidelines. Overestimation of risk is more common than underestimation, and intermediate risk NMIBC is most likely to be incorrectly stratified. With further validation, GPT-4 can become a tool for risk stratification of NMIBC in clinical practice.
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.