ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2026
Evaluating the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Multidisciplinary Team Decisions for Breast Cancer Management.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are essential for optimizing breast cancer treatment, yet the role of general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, in supporting these teams remains underexplored. This study compared ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 with a hospital-based MDT in making treatment and follow-up recommendations, using St. Gallen, European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines as a reference. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive breast cancer patients diagnosed between January 2023 and January 2024 at a training hospital in İstanbul, Türkiye, was conducted. The MDT provided consensus-based recommendations, while anonymized patient data were processed by ChatGPT using English prompts based on guideline summaries. Two experienced breast surgeons independently rated recommendation appropriateness on a five-point scale post-treatment, focusing on clinical outcomes, with agreement assessed using weighted Cohen's kappa across cancer stage, molecular subtype, and proliferation index. Results: ChatGPT-4 (with a knowledge cut-off of March 2023) demonstrated substantial agreement with the MDT for primary treatments (weighted κ = 0.712), whereas ChatGPT-3.5 showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.600). Agreement for additional recommendations, such as genetic counseling, was lower (GPT-4: κ = 0.398; GPT-3.5: κ = 0.302), with better performance in early-stage and less aggressive subtypes compared to advanced or aggressive cases. Discrepancies were noted in complex or aggressive cases. Conclusion: The study suggests ChatGPT, particularly version 4, may serve as a supportive tool for breast cancer teams, especially in early-stage cases, though clinical expertise remains vital for complex scenarios, warranting further research to refine AI integration.
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.