SynthesisOncology reviews2026
Applications of large language models in tumor boards: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Oncology reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models as Decision Support in Breast Cancer Management: A Comparison with Multidisciplinary Team Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Precision oncology meets Generative AI: assessing large language models in multidisciplinary GIST tumor boards.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary decision-making: concordance, predictive support and clinical translation.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) are the gold standard for cancer care but currently face significant pressure from rising case volumes and the increasing complexity of precision medicine. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer potential as Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) to augment these workflows. This systematic review evaluates the current applications, accuracy, and safety of LLMs in MDT decision-making. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and arXiv for primary research published between January 2023 and November 2025. Inclusion criteria required studies to evaluate LLM performance in tumor board settings against human consensus or established clinical guidelines. Results: Thirty-one studies encompassing 3,845 unique patient cases were included. The analysis revealed a distinct "complexity gap" in model performance. In standardized, high-incidence domains such as breast and prostate cancer, advanced models (particularly the GPT-4 family) demonstrated high concordance (up to 94%) with human experts. However, performance degraded significantly in complex, rare, or multimodal scenarios-such as sarcoma or neuro-oncology-where models struggled with "gray zone" decision-making and lacked the ability to interpret non-textual data. While LLMs showed utility in administrative tasks and guideline retrieval, they remained prone to hallucinations and lacked the nuance required for holistic patient assessment. Conclusion: Current LLMs exhibit sufficient maturity to function as assistive tools for documentation and decision support in routine oncological cases but are not yet reliable enough for autonomous decision-making. Successful clinical implementation will require "human-in-the-loop" safeguards, the development of multimodal architectures, and rigorous prospective validation to ensure patient safety.
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.