ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2025
Assessing the accuracy of the GPT-4 model in multidisciplinary tumor board decision prediction.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
- Concordance between GPT-4 and a multidisciplinary tumor board in pancreatic cancer: A prospective pilot study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in Addressing Complex Clinical Questions Based on NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4o as a decision-support tool in a urological tumour board: a prospective evaluation.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Role prompting modulates linguistic style but not clinical decision structure in GPT-5 tumour board simulation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Precision oncology meets Generative AI: assessing large language models in multidisciplinary GIST tumor boards.BMC cancer · 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
- When AI joins the table: evaluating large language model performance in soft tissue sarcoma tumor board decisions.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Advancements in artificial intelligence for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction: current applications and emerging opportunities.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Machine learning for chemotherapy decision-making in breast cancer using large language model.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating Language Models for Biomedical Fact-Checking: A Benchmark Dataset for Cancer Variant Interpretation Verification.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT-4o) in Supporting Tumor Board Decisions.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial intelligence models like GPT-4 (OpenAI) have the potential to support clinical decision-making in oncology. This study aimed to assess the consistency between multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) decisions and GPT-4 model predictions in cancer patient management. PATIENTS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted involving patients aged ≥ 18 years with definite or suspicious cancer diagnoses presented at MTBs in Ankara University Hospitals, Türkiye, from February 2021 to June 2023. GPT-4 was utilized to generate treatment recommendations based on case summaries. Three independent raters evaluated the compatibility between MTB decisions and GPT-4 predictions using a 4-point Likert scale. Cases with mean compatibility scores equal to or below 2 were reviewed by two expert oncologists for appropriateness.
resultsA total of 610 patients were included. The mean compatibility score across raters was 3.59 (SD = 0.81), indicating high agreement between GPT-4 predictions and MTB decisions. Cronbach's alpha was 0.950 (95% CI 0.935-0.960), demonstrating excellent interrater reliability. Sixty-two cases (10.2%) had mean compatibility scores below the threshold of 2. The first expert oncologist deemed GPT-4's predictions inappropriate in 8 of these cases (12.9%), while the second deemed them inappropriate in 16 cases (25.8%). Cohen's kappa showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75, p < 0.001). Discrepancies were often due to rare cases lacking guideline information or misunderstandings of case presentations.
conclusionGPT-4 exhibited high compatibility with MTB decisions in cancer patient management, suggesting its potential as a supportive tool in clinical oncology. However, limitations exist, especially in rare or complex cases.
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.