ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
ChatGPT-4o as a decision-support tool in a urological tumour board: a prospective evaluation.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate ChatGPT-4o in a real-world urological multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB), with concordance for the final clinical recommendation as the protocol-defined primary comparison. METHODS/PATIENTS: Prospective study of 106 consecutive MTB discussions in 92 patients (14 discussed twice) at Hospital Regional Santa Ana de Motril, Spain (January-December 2025). ChatGPT-4o produced a guideline-informed decision with rationale from de-identified summaries, revealed only after MTB consensus. Seven members rated outputs on a five-level correctness scale (operationally defined high concordance, scores ≥4). Benchmarks were ≥80% recommendation concordance, ≥10% added value, ≥5% attitude change. Contemporaneous evaluator notes were reviewed post hoc for documented model errors.
resultsHigh concordance was 91.5% (summarisation), 84.0% (reasoning) and 79.2% (recommendation; 95% CI, 70.6-85.9), below benchmark (Friedman χ
conclusionsFinal recommendation concordance did not meet the protocol-defined benchmark, ChatGPT-4o never altered an MTB decision, and clinically relevant errors occurred even among highly concordant outputs, showing that concordance alone does not guarantee safety. These findings suggest potential utility for case summarisation and guideline-oriented reasoning requiring independent blinded validation, rather than a defined clinical role at this stage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611131What 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.