ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Large language models standardize the interpretation of complex oncology guidelines for brain metastases.
Article in Communications medicine, 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.
- Multidisciplinary blinded randomized expert evaluation of large language models for clinical diagnosis and management.Communications medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe interpretation of nuanced recommendations within complex clinical oncology guidelines, such as those for brain metastases, presents persistent challenges for medical experts, potentially impacting treatment consistency. While Large Language Models offer potential decision support, their comparative efficacy in this domain remains underexplored. This study evaluated the accuracy and convergence of medical experts versus leading Large Language Models in interpreting Strength of Recommendation and Quality of Evidence from the ASTRO and ASCO-SNO-ASTRO brain metastases guidelines.
methodsNeurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and four Large Language Models (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0, Microsoft Copilot Pro, DeepSeek R1) assessed the Strength of Recommendation and Quality of Evidence for guideline recommendations. Accuracy, near-answer rates, and Cohen's weighted kappa (κ) were calculated.
resultsLarge Language Models, notably Gemini and DeepSeek, demonstrate significantly higher accuracy (up to 100% for ASTRO Strength of Recommendation vs. a maximum 58.82% for experts) and near-perfect convergence (κ up to 1.000 vs. κ ≤ 0.504 for experts) in interpreting ASTRO guideline specifics. While all groups found the Quality of Evidence and the more complex ASCO guideline more challenging, Large Language Models generally maintain an advantage in convergence, with Deepseek achieving 61.53% accuracy and κ = 0.428 for ASCO Strength of Recommendation versus a maximum 53.84% accuracy and highly variable convergence for experts.
conclusionsLarge Language Models demonstrate significantly higher accuracy than human experts in structured interpretation of guideline classifications, with near-perfect inter- Large Language Model convergence. This supports their role as standardization tools for guideline parsing - freeing experts for patient-specific reasoning where clinical context, comorbidities, and preferences dominate decision-making.
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.