ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Concordance Between a Generative Artificial Intelligence Model and a Hepatobiliary Multidisciplinary Team in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Management: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) relies on decisions formulated by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Generative artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly explored as decision-support tools. This study aimed to assess the level of agreement between AI-generated recommendation and expert MDT decisions in HCC management.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 100 HCC patients discussed at a hepatobiliary MDT between January 2023 and February 2025 was retrospectively included. Anonymized case summaries, excluding MDT conclusion, were submitted to a large language AI model (ChatGPT-4). Recommendations were categorized using the following four-level progressive concordance scale: (1) treatment aim (curative vs palliative), (2) treatment extent (locoregional vs systemic), (3) treatment modality (e.g., resection, ablation, embolization), and (4) specific technique. Concordance levels 1 and 2 were classified as low concordance (LC), whereas levels 3 and 4 were classified as high concordance (HC).
resultsIn 81 % of the cases, HC between AI-generated and MDT recommendations was observed, with 53 % showing complete agreement on treatment technique. In 19 % of the cases, LC was identified and associated with older patient age (p = 0.001). In most discordant cases, discrepancies reflected the MDT's preference for more aggressive, tailored interventions.
conclusionsIn HCC management, AI demonstrated a high level of agreement with expert MDT decisions, suggesting its potential role as a complementary decision-support tool. However, limitations persist for elderly patients and borderline clinical scenarios, in which individualized human judgment remains essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42722940What 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.