ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Real-world diagnostic and management decisions in rhinology by a large language model: a retrospective study.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in medical knowledge assessment; however, their capacity to assist real-world clinical decision-making in rhinology, particularly when integrating clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic data remains insufficiently investigated.
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic classification and management recommendations of a large language model using real-world rhinologic cases that incorporate comprehensive clinical and written CT reports findings.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center diagnostic accuracy study included 301 adults with sinonasal disease evaluated at a tertiary care center. Structured clinical cases encompassing symptoms, endoscopic findings, and written CT reports findings were entered into ChatGPT-4 and compared with physician diagnoses and management plans serving as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area under the curve, and Cohen's kappa coefficient.
resultsDiagnostic performance varied by disease phenotype, with a marked discrepancy between CRSwNP and CRSsNP. The model demonstrated high sensitivity and accuracy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (sensitivity, 95.3%; accuracy, 89.0%), whereas performance for chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps showed lower sensitivity (58.3%) but high specificity (97.7%). This clinically important discrepancy indicates that the model performs more reliably in phenotypes with distinct endoscopic and radiologic features than in those requiring more nuanced clinical interpretation. In contrast, management recommendations demonstrated consistently high accuracy for both medical and surgical decisions (overall accuracy, 92.7%), with substantial agreement between AI-generated and physician recommendations.
conclusionWhen evaluated using real-world rhinologic cases integrating clinical, endoscopic, and written CT reports findings, a large language model demonstrated strong diagnostic agreement for CRSwNP and consistently reliable management recommendations. However, further validation is required before routine clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42472948What 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.