Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42603075›Full record

ArticleInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology2026

Navigating Oral Cancer Management: Combining Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Guidelines for Optimal Decision-Making.

Mario Augusto Ferrari de Castro, Rogério Aparecido Dedivitis, Leandro Luongo de Matos, Paulo Vitor Sóla Gimenes, Bruno Pelinson Fogaça Duarte, Luiz Paulo Kowalski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International archives of otorhinolaryngology, 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.

Mario Augusto Ferrari de CastroMetropolitan University of Santos, Santos, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0234-9807
Rogério Aparecido DedivitisDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6267-1147
Leandro Luongo de MatosDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (ICESP HCFMUSP), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5068-8208
Paulo Vitor Sóla GimenesIrmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0000-7819-6144
Bruno Pelinson Fogaça DuarteMetropolitan University of Santos, Santos, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6667-1526
Luiz Paulo KowalskiDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0481-156X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Decision-making is one of the most difficult and important tasks performed by surgeons. Clinical guidelines and, more recently, Artificial Intelligence (AI) have been implemented to support these decisions. However, there is a paucity of research exploring the impact of AI on surgical decision-making strategies. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of AI in informing clinical decision-making for the treatment of advanced oral cancer. Methods: Structured questions based on seven selected clinical recommendations were formulated and processed through multiple large language model (LLM) platforms. Claude (Sonnet 3.5) was used to identify discrepancies between established guidelines and LLM-generated responses. Subsequently, three subject matter experts assessed the identified differences to evaluate their clinical significance. Results: Analysis of the 28 generated responses revealed that 21 (75%) showed congruence between LLM outputs and established guideline recommendations. In three instances, guidelines provided significantly more comprehensive content than LLM responses. One LLM response contained additional relevant information, while three responses were contradictory to the guidelines. Conclusion: The LLMs demonstrated 75% concordance with guideline recommendations and should be considered complementary tools for established clinical guidelines.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecarcinomaclinical practice guidelineoral cancersquamous cell

Identifiers

PMID42603075
PMCPMC13476109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.