Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40445459›Full record

ArticleDiscover oncology2025

Assessing the value of artificial intelligence-based image analysis for pre-operative surgical planning of neck dissections and iENE detection in head and neck cancer patients.

Benedikt Schmidl, Cosima C Hoch, Robert Walter, Markus Wirth, Barbara Wollenberg, Timon Hussain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

6 authors.

Benedikt SchmidlDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. benedikt.schmidl@tum.de.
Cosima C HochDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Robert WalterDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Markus WirthDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Barbara WollenbergDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Timon HussainDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAccurate preoperative detection and analysis of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is essential for the surgical planning and execution of a neck dissection and may directly affect the morbidity and prognosis of patients. Additionally, predicting extranodal extension (ENE) using pre-operative imaging could be particularly valuable in oropharyngeal HPV-positive squamous cell carcinoma, enabling more accurate patient counseling, allowing the decision to favor primary chemoradiotherapy over immediate neck dissection when appropriate. Currently, radiological images are evaluated by radiologists and head and neck oncologists; and automated image interpretation is not part of the current standard of care. Therefore, the value of preoperative image recognition by artificial intelligence (AI) with the large language model (LLM) ChatGPT-4 V was evaluated in this exploratory study based on neck computed tomography (CT) images of HNSCC patients with cervical LNM, and corresponding images without LNM. The objective of this study was to firstly assess the preoperative rater accuracy by comparing clinician assessments of imaging-detected extranodal extension (iENE) and the extent of neck dissection to AI predictions, and secondly to evaluate the pathology-based accuracy by comparing AI predictions to final histopathological outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methods45 preoperative CT scans were retrospectively analyzed in this study: 15 cases in which a selective neck dissection (sND) was performed, 15 cases with ensuing radical neck dissection (mrND), and 15 cases without LNM (sND). Of note, image analysis was based on three single images provided to both ChatGPT-4 V and the head and neck surgeons as reviewers. Final pathological characteristics were available in all cases as HNSCC patients had undergone surgery. ChatGPT-4 V was tasked with providing the extent of LNM in the preoperative CT scans and with providing a recommendation for the extent of neck dissection and the detection of iENE. The diagnostic performance of ChatGPT-4 V was reviewed independently by two head and neck surgeons with its accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity being assessed.

resultsIn this study, ChatGPT-4 V reached a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 34.09% in identifying the need for a radical neck dissection based on neck CT images. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting iENE was 100% and 34.15%, respectively. Both human reviewers achieved higher specificity. Notably, ChatGPT-4 V also recommended a mrND and detected iENE on CT images without any cervical LNM. DISCUSSION: In this exploratory study of 45 preoperative CT Neck scans before a neck dissection, ChatGPT-4 V substantially overestimated the degree and severity of lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancer. While these results suggest that ChatGPT-4 V may not yet be a tool providing added value for surgical planning in head and neck cancer, the unparalleled speed of analysis and well-founded reasoning provided suggests that AI tools may provide added value in the future.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatGPTImage recognitionLNM

Identifiers

PMID40445459
PMCPMC12125457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.