Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42907951›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026

LLM-assisted multidisciplinary decision-making in lung cancer: efficacy of Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5 in a real-world MDT setting.

Zichun Zhou, Min Wang, Jia Li, Zhenchang Wang, Han Lv

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zichun ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
Min WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Shandong, 250117, China.
Jia LiDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China. currylee92@163.com.
Zhenchang WangDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China. cjr.wzhch@vip.163.com.
Han LvDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China. Chrislvhan@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) review is essential for individualized treatment planning in lung cancer, where decisions often require integration of staging, pathology, molecular findings, performance status, and multimodal treatment options. However, the effective implementation of MDT review remains constrained by limited specialist availability in resource-limited hospitals and by high patient volume, heavy physician workload, and tight clinical schedules in tertiary care centers. Large language models (LLMs) may support MDT workflows by synthesizing clinical information and generating preliminary treatment recommendations for clinician review. This study compared GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5-Pro with expert MDT recommendations in real-world lung cancer cases and evaluated how information completeness and input format influenced LLM-generated treatment recommendations.

methodsWe conducted a head-to-head evaluation of GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5-Pro for lung-cancer multidisciplinary team decision support. For each of 150 consecutively collected cases, structured vignettes were entered using three information-completeness levels in both natural-language and isomorphic JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) formats. Each model produced a single-sentence recommendation. Outputs were compared with the expert multidisciplinary team plan, which was treated as a clinical reference standard for concordance analysis rather than an objective guideline-only gold standard, using predefined plan-level categories. To better quantify model performance, we applied keyword extraction and semantic matching to normalize both multidisciplinary team recommendations and model outputs into ten treatment categories with subsequent manual review and correction.

resultsStratifying by information level and format, Information Level III produced the best overall performance for Gemini-2.5-Pro under natural-language input, with F1 0.7603, accuracy 0.8647, precision 0.7031, and recall 0.8278. GPT-5 achieved its highest recall under Information Level III with JSON input (recall 0.9132), but this was accompanied by lower precision and F1. Under the same natural-language Information Level III, GPT-5 reached recall 0.8770 with F1 0.6826 and accuracy 0.7967.

conclusionsGemini-2.5-Pro show promise as adjuncts to MDT decision-making in lung cancer, offering high agreement with expert plans under controlled conditions. With appropriate clinician oversight, LLM-based tools may help expand access to standardized, high-quality recommendations where specialist availability is limited.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalLarge Language ModelsLung NeoplasmsPatient Care TeamHumansLarge language modelLung cancerMultidisciplinary team meetingTreatment decision-making

Identifiers

PMID42907951
PMCPMC13689129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.