ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus-Based Clinical Decision Validation: Concordance Assessment Between Deep Large Language Model Outputs and Global Expert Panel Recommendations.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe newly developed large language model (LLM) DeepSeek has shown potential for application in other medical fields. However, few systematic studies have assessed its concordance with international expert consensus or compared its performance with leading models such as Gemini 2.0 Pro and ChatGPT-4o in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 139 consensus questions from the 19th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (SG-BCC) were included into analysis. Each model was trained to answer each consensus question five times. The DeepSeek model was compared with the expert panel consensus in terms of concordance rate, robustness of the answers, Pearson correlation coefficient r for non-binary questions, and absolute proportion difference for binary questions. At the same time, a horizontal comparison was made with the previous LLMs Gemini 2.0 Pro and ChatGPT-4o.
resultsThe overall concordance rate between DeepSeek-V3 and the expert panel consensus was 63.31%, and the average answer robustness (i.e., its self-consistency across repeated queries) of DeepSeek-V3 was 86.69%. In addition, DeepSeek-V3 performed similarly to Gemini 2.0 Pro and ChatGPT-4o in terms of concordance rate of the most frequent answers (p = 0.849). In terms of model robustness, there were significant statistical differences among the models (p < 0.001), with DeepSeek-V3 significantly outperforming Gemini 2.0 Pro (p = 0.005) and ChatGPT-4o (p < 0.001).
conclusionsDeepSeek models showed moderate concordance in following the consensus of breast cancer expert panel and showed significant advantages in answer robustness, suggesting that DeepSeek has great application potential in the field of clinical decision-making for breast cancer.
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.