Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42454361›Full record

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.

Yuan Ren, Wei Su, Youtu Wu, Sheng Dong, Shikai Liang, Xuejun Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yuan RenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-5857-9535
Wei SuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Youtu WuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Sheng DongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Shikai LiangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xuejun YangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceclinical decision supportlarge language modelsmultidisciplinary teamoncology education

Identifiers

PMID42454361
PMCPMC13367491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.