ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Evaluating ChatGPT's recommendations for systematic treatment decisions in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Perspectives from experts and junior doctors.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. 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.
- Accuracy of large language models in head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT and Gemini in TNM staging and clinical decision support.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT's recommendations for systematic treatment decisions in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Perspectives from experts and junior doctors.International journal of cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluates ChatGPT-4's potential as a decision-support tool in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The study involved 12 retrospectively chosen patients with detailed clinical, tumor, treatment history, imaging, pathology, and symptomatic data. ChatGPT-4, along with six experts and 10 junior oncologists, assessed these cases. The AI model applied the 8th edition AJCC TNM criteria for tumor staging and proposed treatment strategies. Performance was quantitatively rated on a 0-100 scale by both expert and junior oncologists, with further analysis through statistical scoring and intraclass correlation coefficients. Findings revealed that ChatGPT-4 achieved an 83.3% accuracy rate in tumor staging with two instances of mis-staging. Junior doctors rated its staging performance highly, showing strong consensus on language capabilities and moderate on learning assistance. Experts rated ChatGPT-4's treatment strategy: high agreement on subject knowledge (median 86, mean 84.7), logical reasoning (median 83, mean 82), and analytical skills (median 85, mean 82); moderate on ChatGPT-4's usefulness for treatment decision (median 80, mean 77) and its recommendations (median 80, mean 76.8). Junior doctors rated ChatGPT-4 higher in treatment strategy (medians above 85) with limited consensus (subject knowledge: median 88, mean 84.5; logical reasoning: median 90, mean 83.2; analytical skills: median 90, mean 82.5; usefulness: median 85, mean 81.8; agreements for: median 85, mean 80.4). ChatGPT is proficient in tumor staging but moderately effective in treatment recommendations. Nonetheless, it shows promise as a supportive tool for clinicians, particularly for those with less experience, in making informed treatment decisions.
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.