ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery consultations: evaluating the concordance between a large language model and expert clinical decisions.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical workflows, but their real-world application in thoracic surgery decision-making remains underexplored. Methods: This retrospective observational study assessed the concordance between diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations generated by Scholar GPT (based on GPT-4) and decisions made by board-certified thoracic surgeons. All outpatient consultations over one week in a tertiary care hospital were included. Each case was evaluated using a 6-point concordance scale (0-5), developed to quantify agreement in diagnosis and treatment planning. This was a retrospective observational, single-centre analysis; two independent thoracic surgeons assigned the concordance score. We report descriptive statistics and used Results: A total of 81 consultations were analysed. The mean concordance score was 3.67 ± 1.17. High concordance (scores 4-5) occurred in 56.8% of cases, particularly in oncological diagnoses such as mediastinal and pleural tumours. Lower concordance was observed in complex or functional conditions like metastatic lung disease and thoracic outlet syndrome. No significant differences were found between consultation modalities or visit types. Conclusion: Scholar GPT demonstrated promising alignment with surgeon decisions in structured oncologic cases but showed variability in complex scenarios. While AI may assist in streamlining outpatient workflows, its use should remain complementary to expert clinical judgment. These findings are exploratory and should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size and single-centre, one-week design.
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.