Observational studyBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Comparative evaluation of treatment recommendations generated by generative AI and breast cancer specialists for advanced and recurrent breast cancer: a multidimensional assessment of evidence interpretation and clinical decision support.
Observational study in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (AI), are increasingly explored for clinical applications due to their ability to synthesize medical information. In breast cancer care, where therapeutic decision-making is complex because of expanding treatment options, AI-based decision support tools may improve efficiency and consistency. However, their clinical validity and safety remain insufficiently evaluated in real-world settings. The present study aimed to compare the characteristics of treatment recommendations generated by a large language model with those proposed by breast cancer specialists using identical clinical information.
methodsThis retrospective observational study included 100 patients with advanced or recurrent breast cancer. Clinical information was provided to ChatGPT using a standardized prompt to generate treatment recommendations. Six board-certified breast cancer specialists independently proposed treatment strategies for the same cases. Recommendations were evaluated using five predefined criteria: 1. Comprehensiveness and appropriateness of literature selection, 2. Accuracy of interpretation of key evidence, 3. Clinical appropriateness and diversity of treatment options, 4. Accuracy of adverse event information, 5. Time required to generate recommendations. Group comparisons were performed using linear mixed-effects models with case and evaluator as random effects.
resultsChatGPT achieved higher scores than specialists across all five evaluation criteria, with the largest difference observed for accuracy of key evidence interpretation. The mean total score was 93.7 for ChatGPT and 44.1 for specialists, and linear mixed-effects model analysis confirmed a significantly higher total score for ChatGPT (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that AI-generated responses tended to provide more comprehensive and structured summaries of available evidence within the predefined evaluation framework.
conclusionsLLMs were able to generate comprehensive and structured treatment recommendations based on the provided clinical information. However, these findings primarily reflect differences in information synthesis under predefined evaluation criteria rather than superiority in real-world clinical decision-making. Given the potential risk of hallucinations, AI should be positioned as an assistive tool to support specialist-led decision-making in breast cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42159946What 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.