ArticleInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Navigating Oral Cancer Management: Combining Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Guidelines for Optimal Decision-Making.
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.
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: 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
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.