ArticleCancer medicine2026
Agreement in Staging and Treatment Recommendations Among Clinicians, Text-Only Clinicians, DeepSeek-V3, and ChatGPT-4o for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
Abstract
purposeWith AI tools being increasingly utilized for medical inquiries, this study evaluated the agreement between clinicians, text-only clinicians, DeepSeek-V3, and ChatGPT-4o in TNM staging and preferred treatment recommendations for newly diagnosed nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients.
methodsA retrospective study analyzed 322 consecutive NPC patients treated at our institution from January 2023 to February 2025. TNM staging (AJCC 8th edition) and preferred treatment recommendations were independently assessed by text-only clinicians, DeepSeek-V3, and ChatGPT-4o. Interrater agreement was quantified using Cohen's kappa coefficient and Fleiss' kappa analysis (κ), with the range of κ = 0.81-1.00 considered almost perfect agreement.
resultsThe cohort comprised 244 males and 78 females (median age, 52 years, range, 18-77 years). Cohen's kappa analysis showed that for clinical staging, moderate agreement was exhibited in clinician-AI comparisons, while substantial agreement was observed between clinicians and text-only clinicians. For preferred treatment recommendations, slight agreement was noted in clinician-AI comparisons, while moderate agreement was found between clinicians and text-only clinicians. Fleiss' kappa analysis demonstrated moderate agreement among the 4 raters for T stage, N stage, and clinical staging, while M stage achieved almost perfect agreement. However, overall agreement for treatment recommendations was fair.
conclusionsThe AI tools demonstrated moderate agreement with clinicians in overall clinical staging for NPC, with heterogeneous performance across T, N, and M categories (almost perfect for M stage, moderate for T and N stages), whereas their preferred treatment recommendations showed only slight agreement with clinical decision-making.
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.