ArticleEuropean thyroid journal2026
Promise and pitfalls of AI chatbots in complex decision-making for thyroid nodules and papillary thyroid cancer.
Article in European thyroid journal, 2026. 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.
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
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in medicine, but their reliability in scenarios with multiple management options is unclear. Indeterminate thyroid nodules and low- and low-to-intermediate-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) represent such cases. Methods: In a nationwide web-based survey, 201 members of the Hellenic Endocrine Society evaluated 12 clinical vignettes on indeterminate thyroid nodules and low- and low-to-intermediate-risk PTC. Their responses were compared with those generated by four conversational AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek) at two time points, 11 months apart. DeepSeek was assessed only at the second time point. Chatbot outputs were assessed for agreement with endocrinologists' predominant answers, concordance with the most guideline-consistent options (American and European Thyroid Association recommendations), temporal stability, and inter-model agreement. Results: Alignment between chatbots and endocrinologists' predominant responses was limited, reaching at most 25% across scenarios. In contrast, concordance with the most guideline-consistent options was higher, up to 83% (10/12 scenarios), depending on the model and time point. Across 12 scenarios, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot changed their responses in 4, 7, and 5 scenarios, respectively, with some updates moving closer to, and others further from, guideline-based answers. Inter-model agreement ranged from 33 to 67%, indicating substantial variability among chatbots. Conclusion: AI chatbots show evolving but inconsistent performance in complex thyroid management scenarios. While guideline concordance can be relatively high, substantial variability across models, limited temporal reproducibility, and poor alignment with clinical practice highlight the need for ongoing longitudinal evaluation before safe integration into clinical decision-making.
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.