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.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.