ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Development of a ChatGPT-based assistant in multidisciplinary team discussions in oncological urology: the UroMDT Advisor study.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to develop and evaluate a ChatGPT-based application designed to assist multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions in oncological urology. PATIENTS AND
methodsA ChatGPT-based tool (UroMDT Advisor) was developed to: (1) generate case summaries, (2) provide evidence-based treatment suggestions aligned with EAU, ESMO, and NCCN guidelines, (3) offer supporting references, (4) compare opinions across specialties to identify inconsistencies, (5) draft final MDT reports, and (6) create patient summaries. A consecutive series of anonymized oncological cases from eight centers were entered into the system. For each case, GPT-generated opinions were compared with those of MDT participants (urologists, oncologists, radiotherapists) and the final consensus decision. The model operated in a blinded fashion during concordance testing and was subsequently unblinded to produce final reports and patient summaries. Two expert urologists independently assessed the accuracy, completeness, and clarity of GPT outputs.
resultsA total of 180 cases were analyzed: 123 (68.3%) prostate, 21 (11.7%) renal, 21 (11.7%) urothelial, 12 (6.7%) testicular, and 3 (1.7%) penile cancer cases. Exact agreement between UroMDT Advisor and urologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and final MDT decisions was 61.7%, 66.7%, 63.3%, and 66.7%, respectively; the corresponding unweighted Cohen's kappa values were 0.401, 0.489, 0.441, and 0.482. After resolution of discordant ratings, the GPT-generated final reports were rated as accurate in 90% of cases, fairly accurate in 8%, and inaccurate in 2%. Completeness was rated high in 95%, moderate in 2%, and low in 3% of cases, while clarity was rated high in 95% and moderate in 5%.
conclusionsThe UroMDT Advisor showed moderate agreement with final MDT decisions and produced highly rated outputs. These findings support further evaluation of large language models as supervised decision-support and documentation tools in oncological MDT workflows while maintaining human oversight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42804130What 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.