ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2026
Performance of large language models in ambiguous treatment scenarios of early breast cancer.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsensus conferences guide treatment where evidence is ambiguous; lacking ground truth, artificial intelligence is unvalidated there. We evaluated concordance between large language models (LLMs) and expert votes at the 2025 St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour LLMs (Claude Opus 4.1, GPT-5, Gemini Flash 2.5, DeepSeek V3.2) each answered 81 multiple-choice questions once (324 responses). Outcomes were first-choice agreement (LLM selected the panel's modal option) and top-2 agreement (either of its two leading options; 66 questions with ≥3 options). Normalized consensus strength scored panel agreement 0-100, adjusted for option count. Mixed-effects logistic regression with random intercepts for question modelled agreement on consensus strength, complexity and LLM (Model 1: 324 observations/81 questions; Model 2: 264/66). Agreement was also compared with an option-count-weighted null (permutation, question-level cluster bootstrap). Questions with ≤2 LLMs matching the panel underwent qualitative review.
resultsFirst-choice agreement was 54-64% and top-2 agreement 77-89%. Agreement exceeded chance overall (58.6% vs 29.8%; +28.9 points, 95% CI 21.4-36.4) and for questions with 3, 4 and ≥ 5 options (42.6-66.1% vs 18.8-33.3% expected), but not binary questions (65.0% vs 50.0%; +15.0, 95% CI -5.0 to 33.3). Consensus strength was the predominant factor associated with concordance (Model 1: odds ratio 1.04/point, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, P < 0.001; Model 2: 1.06, 1.03-1.09, P < 0.001). Qualitative review identified knowledge gaps in 18 questions (22%), defensible alternatives in 14 (17%) and evidence-consistent insights in 8 (10%).
conclusionsLLMs amplify prevailing evidence but show significant limitations in ambiguous scenarios. Prospective evaluation within consensus processes is needed.
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.