ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Assessing ChatGPT-4 as a clinical decision support tool in neuro-oncology radiotherapy: a prospective comparative study.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of large language models in tumor boards: a systematic review.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Large Language Models in Clinical Neurology: A Systematic Review.Research square · 2026Article
- Comparing Artificial intelligence to physicians' competences in the domain of clinical reasoning: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeLarge language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4 have shown potential for medical decision support, but their reliability in specialized fields remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT-4’s performance as a clinical decision support tool in neuro-oncology radiotherapy by comparing its treatment recommendations for patients with central nervous system tumors against a multidisciplinary tumor board’s decisions, an independent specialist’s opinion, and published guidelines. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively collected 101 neuro-oncology cases (May 2024–May 2025) presented at a tertiary-care tumor board. Key case details were entered into ChatGPT-4 with a standardized query asking whether to recommend radiotherapy and, if so, the target volumes and dose. The AI’s recommendations were recorded and compared to the tumor board’s consensus, a blinded radiation oncologist’s recommendation, and ESMO guideline indications when applicable. Concordance rates (percentage agreement) and Cohen’s kappa were calculated. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed using the reference decisions as ground truth. McNemar’s test was used to evaluate any bias in discordant recommendations.
resultsChatGPT-4 matched the tumor board’s radiotherapy recommendations in 76% of cases (κ = 0.61). Agreement with the independent specialist was 79% (κ = 0.58). In 61 low-complexity cases with clear guidelines, ChatGPT-4 concurred with guideline-based indications in 76.7% of cases, missing some recommended treatments (sensitivity 73%, specificity 100%). In intermediate-complexity scenarios, concordance with the tumor board was 70.8%, with most discrepancies due to the AI recommending treatment that experts did not (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 64.7%). In high-complexity cases, agreement was 90.9% (sensitivity 100%, specificity 83.3%). Overall, ChatGPT-4 showed an overtreatment bias, more often recommending radiotherapy when the human experts chose observation (p < 0.05 for AI vs. tumor board discordances). Its overall agreement (76%) was lower than that of the human specialist (90%).
conclusionChatGPT-4 can reproduce many expert radiotherapy decisions in neuro-oncology, reflecting substantial absorption of standard clinical practice. However, it cannot substitute for human judgment: the AI omitted some indicated treatments in straightforward cases and suggested unnecessary therapy in some borderline cases, indicating a lack of nuanced clinical reasoning. Careful human oversight is essential if such models are to be used for clinical decision support.
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.