Observational studyBMC cancer2026
Single-session agreement of ChatGPT and Gemini treatment recommendations with multidisciplinary tumor board decisions in thoracic oncology.
Observational study in BMC cancer, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the single-session agreement between treatment recommendations generated by ChatGPT and Gemini and real-world decisions made by a thoracic oncology multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB).
methodsThis retrospective observational study included 102 thoracic oncology cases discussed at a university hospital MDTB between June and December 2025. Cases were categorized as primary lung cancer, pulmonary mass without pathological diagnosis, esophageal cancer, or pulmonary metastasis. Standardized anonymized case summaries, including clinical, radiological, pathological, and laboratory data, were presented to ChatGPT and Gemini. Each model was asked to provide a single tumor board-like management recommendation. Each case was submitted once to each model in a separate new chat session, and the initial output was used for analysis. Recommendations were classified into predefined categories and compared with final MDTB decisions. Agreement was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient.
resultsIn this single-session evaluation, overall agreement with MDTB decisions was 52.0% for ChatGPT and 56.9% for Gemini. Both models showed moderate agreement, with slightly higher agreement for Gemini than ChatGPT (κ = 0.487 vs. κ = 0.432; p < 0.001). Agreement was higher in standardized scenarios, such as primary lung cancer and esophageal cancer, but lower in pulmonary masses without pathological diagnosis and pulmonary metastases. No significant difference was found between the models in overall concordance with MDTB decisions (p = 0.359).
conclusionThe initial outputs of ChatGPT and Gemini showed moderate agreement with MDTB decisions in this single-session evaluation. LLMs may support guideline-based thoracic oncology decision-making but remain limited in complex, patient-specific scenarios and should not replace multidisciplinary clinical judgment. These findings should be interpreted as concordance with real-world MDTB decisions rather than evidence of stable model-level performance or clinical accuracy.
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.