ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Artificial Intelligence and Multidisciplinary Oncology Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of LLM Concordance with MDT Recommendations and Implications for Clinical Reasoning Education.
Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making is a cornerstone of oncology practice and an important context for developing clinical reasoning skills. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has recently been explored as a potential tool to support clinical decision-making in oncology settings. Methods: This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, synthesizes evidence on the concordance between LLM-generated recommendations and MDT decisions in oncology. Twenty-two studies were included, primarily comprising retrospective analyses comparing AI-generated outputs with expert MDT consensus across diagnostic, therapeutic, and workflow-related tasks. Results: LLMs demonstrated generally moderate to high concordance with MDT decisions in guideline-constrained clinical scenarios. However, performance decreased in complex or less-structured cases. Variability in outcomes was associated with model architecture, prompting strategies, and retrieval-augmented approaches. Across studies, AI performance was most consistent when aligned with established clinical guidelines. Substantial heterogeneity existed among models and study designs, limiting direct comparability. Conclusion: From a cognitive perspective, LLMs may be conceptualized as external information-processing tools that partially mirror structured aspects of MDT reasoning in specific contexts. However, evidence remains limited to retrospective concordance analyses and does not demonstrate educational impact. Any implications for clinical reasoning education should be interpreted as theoretical and require prospective validation using established educational frameworks such as cognitive apprenticeship or shared mental models.
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.