ArticleScientific reports2026
Performance of GPT-based large language models in hepatocellular carcinoma stratification: liver function assessment, BCLC staging, and treatment recommendations.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT have been proposed to support complex clinical decision-making. This study evaluated the performance of GPT-based LLM in analyzing clinical, radiological, and laboratory data from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to assess liver function, assign BCLC stage, and recommend treatment. Data from 106 HCC patients (82% male, median age 65 [22-86]) were compiled into anonymized integrated reports. Four GPT-versions (4, o1, o3, 5.4) were prompted-using both short and long instructions-to calculate MELD, ALBI, and Child-Pugh scores, assign BCLC stage, and generate treatment recommendations based on current guidelines. Outputs were compared to expert consensus and tumor board decisions. Errors were categorized by type and source. Time and cost analyses compared GPT to clinical staff. All GPT versions achieved high accuracy (> 85%) in liver function assessment, with MELD calculation being the most error-prone. BCLC staging accuracy ranged from 46.2% (version 4) to 84.0% (o3), with misclassification of radiological reports as the main error source. Reasoning-optimized models (o1, o3) performed best for treatment recommendations, achieving an overall accuracy (correct suggestions and acceptable alternatives) of up to 90.6%. In 9-14% of cases, GPT suggestions were retrospectively more guideline-concordant than tumor board decisions. GPT processing was significantly faster and reduced costs by approximately 300- to 1300-fold compared to clinical staff. GPT-based LLMs show potential as decision-support tools for liver function assessment, BCLC staging, and treatment guidance in HCC. Particularly with reasoning-optimized models and detailed prompting, LLMs may serve as valuable adjuncts in multidisciplinary HCC workflows. However, a non-negligible error rate requires expert oversight and further model refinement.
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.