ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team recommendations in the management of colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Care and Clinical Decision Support: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and Multidisciplinary Oncology Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of LLM Concordance with MDT Recommendations and Implications for Clinical Reasoning Education.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary decision-making: concordance, predictive support and clinical translation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- AI-enhanced oncology MDT 2.0: from multi-modal data synergy to value-based care reconstruction - a systematic review of clinical efficacy and socioeconomic benefits.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Risks and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence as an Adjunct in Colorectal Multidisciplinary Decision Making.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
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
Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are central to treatment planning for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) but require time and consistent access to expertise. Chat-based large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT can generate recommendations from written clinical summaries; however, their concordance with MDT decisions in CRCLM is not well characterized. We conducted a single-center retrospective concordance study of 30 consecutive CRCLM cases discussed at an MDT. ChatGPT was provided a standardized anonymized text synopsis (without direct imaging access) and asked for management recommendations under two a priori conditions: (1) baseline synopsis only, and (2) a conditional query in which resectability status was explicitly specified. Each case and condition was queried three independent times in separate sessions using identical prompts; outputs were mapped to predefined management categories. Agreement between the final LLM recommendation and MDT decisions was assessed using percent agreement and Cohen's kappa. Across repeated runs, the LLM assigned the same management category in all cases (within-model consistency 100%, 3/3) for both querying conditions. In the baseline condition, agreement with MDT decisions was 66.7% (20/30; Cohen's kappa = 0.606, moderate agreement). In the conditional resectability-specified condition, agreement was 93.3% (28/30; Cohen's kappa = 0.924, very good agreement). Baseline discordant cases were characterized by conservative model outputs, including recommendations for systemic therapy and/or additional diagnostic work-up; only two cases remained discordant after resectability was specified. A chat-based LLM showed moderate concordance with unanimous MDT recommendations from minimal case summaries and very good concordance when resectability status was explicitly specified. These findings support feasibility as a supervised decision-support adjunct, but do not establish clinical benefit; prospective outcome-based validation is required.
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.