ArticleJMIR AI2026
Augmenting Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations With Locally Run Large Language Models: Prospective Evaluation of Real-World Implementation.
Article in JMIR AI, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) constitute the foundation of modern tumor therapy. Large language models (LLMs) are widely discussed for optimizing their recommendations. Objective: This is the first prospective feasibility study evaluating the implementation of locally run LLMs on real-world cases within a regular head and neck MDT. Methods: Seventeen patients participated in the study. The MDT cases were processed by 2 different local LLMs (gemma-3-12b and gpt-oss-20b) to obtain treatment recommendations. The MDT conferred as usual. After the decision was made, the MDT was presented with the LLMs' recommendations. If deemed to be beneficial, the MDT's recommendation was adjusted. The MDT members rated the LLMs' responses inter alia, for medical adequacy on a 6-point Likert scale. In addition, a tabular comparison of the MDT's and LLMs' recommendations was carried out. Results: In one case, 6% (1/17, 95% CI 0%-29%), the LLM was able to substantially improve the MDT recommendation by underscoring a follow-up examination that had not yet been performed. Concordance regarding the curative or palliative therapy regimen reached 94% (16/17, 95% CI 71%-100%); for gemma-3-12b and 59% (10/17, 95% CI 33%-82%) for gpt-oss-20b. Gemma-3-12b stated the same first-line therapy regimen as the MDT as first-line in 35% (6/17, 95% CI 14%-62%) of cases, and gpt-oss-20b in 41% (7/17, 95% CI 18%-67%) of cases. In 59% (10/17, 95% CI 33%-82%) of patients, gemma-3-12b stated the MDT's first-line therapy regimen, albeit with a different priority, while for gpt-oss-20b, it was 41% (7/17, 95% CI 18%-67%) of patients. Medical adequacy, as rated by the MDT members, revealed a median of 5 (IQR 2-5) for gemma-3-12b and 4 (IQR 3-5) for gpt-oss-20b. MDT members stated potentially hazardous information in 27% (25/93, 95% CI 18%-37%) of ratings for gemma-3-12b and 17% (14/83, 95% CI 9%-26%) of ratings for gpt-oss-20b. Conclusions: Locally run LLMs improved the MDT recommendation in 1 case and were primarily useful for identifying potentially relevant missing information in other cases, underscoring that they cannot replace MDTs. However, their observed benefit suggests that more advanced local models may offer safe, rapid, and cost-effective support for MDT decision-making. The study should be seen as an exploratory setting focusing on practical insights rather than benchmarking its clinical impact. Accordingly, the data demonstrate that the integration of LLMs in today's MDT workflow is feasible and may benefit the quality of decision-making in specific cases.
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.