ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Clinical evaluation of large language model recommendations in melanoma: comparison with multidisciplinary tumor board decisions in a real-world cohort.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being studied as potentially valuable support tools in oncology practice including clinical decision support. Yet, their real-world utility in melanoma treatment decision-making is still not sufficiently considered, especially in resource-limited settings. Accordingly, this study evaluated the performance of four LLMs against real-world treatment decisions of a melanoma multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 151 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed cutaneous melanoma discussed at the MDT at the University Clinical Center Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina, between 2020 and 2024. Melanoma treatment recommendations generated by four LLMs, ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5 Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro and DeepSeek-V3.2, were evaluated by four board-certified oncologists against the actual MDT treatment decisions. Additionally, the LLM-generated recommendations were also rated across five pre-specified domains: clarity, clinical applicability, coverage, explanation and support with evidence, and guideline concordance. Results: In this study, inter-rater reliability was acceptable to good, supporting the consistency of expert evaluation. ChatGPT-5 Thinking showed the strongest and most consistent overall performance, followed by ChatGPT-4o, while Gemini 2.5 Pro and DeepSeek-V3.2 were rated less favorably. Differences between LLMs were statistically significant across all evaluated domains. Performance differences appeared most clinically relevant in more complex scenarios, particularly when consideration of adjuvant or systemic treatment strategies was required. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that selected LLMs may have a supportive role in everyday melanoma MDT practice particularly in oncology centers with limited resources. However, the current results do not support the use of LLM-generated recommendations as independent treatment decisions, and further prospective studies are required before LLM-assisted treatment recommendations can be safely integrated into the MDT workflow.
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.