Skip to content
Review

ChatGPT-4o as a decision-support tool in a urological tumour board: a prospective evaluation.

Aug 2026 · Clinical and Translational Oncology · 0 citations · 15 references
Medicine

TL;DR

Final recommendation concordance did not meet the protocol-defined benchmark, ChatGPT-4o never altered an MTB decision, and clinically relevant errors occurred even among highly concordant outputs, showing that concordance alone does not guarantee safety.

View source

Similar papers

Jul 2026

Evaluating the Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in Addressing Complex Clinical Questions Based on NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

ChatGPT-4o demonstrates high concordance with NCCN rectal cancer guidelines across all evaluated clinical domains with notable improvement over prior ChatGPT iterations evaluated by this group.

Ryan J Meyer, Tamir E. Bresler, Kevin Palmer et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

The doctors of the future: the competition of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 omni, and Gemini 2.0 Flash in andrology.

ChatGPT-4o emerged as the most reliable model for andrology-related questions, providing responses that are were highly consistent with current clinical guidelines, suggesting that error-awareness mechanisms in large language models have the potential for further refinement.

U. Uysal, E. Alma, A. Altunkol et al. · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Accuracy, Completeness, and Clarity of an AI-Based Chatbot for the EAU Neuro-Urology Guidelines.

The EAU Guidelines Bot showed excellent accuracy, completeness, and clarity when applied to neuro-urology guideline-based questions, and was comparable to that of ChatGPT 5.5, with both systems providing highly accurate guideline-concordant responses.

S. De Cillis, Riccardo Lombardo, D. Amparore et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Evaluating the potential of ChatGPT as an educational decision-support tool for hemodialysis decision-making in nephrology training

It is suggested that ChatGPT may align more closely with nephrology fellows’ decision-making than with senior nephrologists’ judgments, and may have potential as an educational tool for trainees, encouraging systematic evaluation of HD indications and structured clinical reasoning.

Esin Avsar Kucukkurt, Feyza Bora, H. Sozel et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.