ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Large Language Models Versus Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Decisions in Thyroid Cancer.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as clinical decision-support tools; however, their agreement with real-world multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) decisions remains insufficiently investigated in thyroid oncology. To evaluate the concordance between treatment recommendations generated by ChatGPT 5.2 and Gemini 3.0 and decisions made by a tertiary multidisciplinary thyroid tumor board. Methods: This study included 59 consecutive patients discussed at a tertiary MDT between August and December 2025. Anonymized clinical data, including demographics, ultrasonographic findings, and Bethesda cytology, were provided to both LLMs using standardized structured prompts. MDT decisions were defined as the reference standard. Agreement was assessed using exact concordance rates and Cohen's kappa ( Results: ChatGPT 5.2 achieved a concordance rate of 71.2% (42/59), demonstrating substantial agreement ( Conclusions: While LLMs demonstrate promising concordance in standardized thyroid cancer management, they are best positioned as supportive decision aids-such as in MDT preparation and workflow streamlining-rather than replacements for expert multidisciplinary evaluation, particularly in complex clinical scenarios. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.