Concordance of ChatGPT artificial intelligence decision-making in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary meetings: retrospective study.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2025-05-07 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf040
Dimitrios Chatziisaak, Pascal Burri, Moritz Sparn, Dieter Hahnloser, Thomas Steffen, Stephan Bischofberger
{"title":"Concordance of ChatGPT artificial intelligence decision-making in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary meetings: retrospective study.","authors":"Dimitrios Chatziisaak, Pascal Burri, Moritz Sparn, Dieter Hahnloser, Thomas Steffen, Stephan Bischofberger","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zraf040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the concordance between therapeutic recommendations proposed by a multidisciplinary team meeting and those generated by a large language model (ChatGPT) for colorectal cancer. Although multidisciplinary teams represent the 'standard' for decision-making in cancer treatment, they require significant resources and may be susceptible to human bias. Artificial intelligence, particularly large language models such as ChatGPT, has the potential to enhance or optimize the decision-making processes. The present study examines the potential for integrating artificial intelligence into clinical practice by comparing multidisciplinary team decisions with those generated by ChatGPT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, single-centre study was conducted involving consecutive patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer discussed at our multidisciplinary team meeting. The pre- and post-therapeutic multidisciplinary team meeting recommendations were assessed for concordance compared with ChatGPT-4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred consecutive patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer of all stages were included. In the pretherapeutic discussions, complete concordance was observed in 72.5%, with partial concordance in 10.2% and discordance in 17.3%. For post-therapeutic discussions, the concordance increased to 82.8%; 11.8% of decisions displayed partial concordance and 5.4% demonstrated discordance. Discordance was more frequent in patients older than 77 years and with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥ III.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is substantial concordance between the recommendations generated by ChatGPT and those provided by traditional multidisciplinary team meetings, indicating the potential utility of artificial intelligence in supporting clinical decision-making for colorectal cancer management.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12056934/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraf040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the concordance between therapeutic recommendations proposed by a multidisciplinary team meeting and those generated by a large language model (ChatGPT) for colorectal cancer. Although multidisciplinary teams represent the 'standard' for decision-making in cancer treatment, they require significant resources and may be susceptible to human bias. Artificial intelligence, particularly large language models such as ChatGPT, has the potential to enhance or optimize the decision-making processes. The present study examines the potential for integrating artificial intelligence into clinical practice by comparing multidisciplinary team decisions with those generated by ChatGPT.

Methods: A retrospective, single-centre study was conducted involving consecutive patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer discussed at our multidisciplinary team meeting. The pre- and post-therapeutic multidisciplinary team meeting recommendations were assessed for concordance compared with ChatGPT-4.

Results: One hundred consecutive patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer of all stages were included. In the pretherapeutic discussions, complete concordance was observed in 72.5%, with partial concordance in 10.2% and discordance in 17.3%. For post-therapeutic discussions, the concordance increased to 82.8%; 11.8% of decisions displayed partial concordance and 5.4% demonstrated discordance. Discordance was more frequent in patients older than 77 years and with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥ III.

Conclusion: There is substantial concordance between the recommendations generated by ChatGPT and those provided by traditional multidisciplinary team meetings, indicating the potential utility of artificial intelligence in supporting clinical decision-making for colorectal cancer management.

ChatGPT人工智能决策在结直肠癌多学科会议中的一致性:回顾性研究
背景:本研究的目的是评估多学科团队会议提出的治疗建议与大型语言模型(ChatGPT)产生的结直肠癌治疗建议之间的一致性。尽管多学科团队代表了癌症治疗决策的“标准”,但它们需要大量资源,并且可能容易受到人类偏见的影响。人工智能,特别是像ChatGPT这样的大型语言模型,具有增强或优化决策过程的潜力。本研究通过比较多学科团队决策与ChatGPT生成的决策,探讨了将人工智能整合到临床实践中的潜力。方法:在我们的多学科团队会议上讨论了一项回顾性、单中心研究,涉及连续的新诊断的结直肠癌患者。与ChatGPT-4比较,评估治疗前和治疗后多学科小组会议建议的一致性。结果:连续纳入100例不同分期的新诊断结直肠癌患者。在治疗前讨论中,72.5%的人完全一致,10.2%的人部分一致,17.3%的人不一致。对于治疗后讨论,一致性增加到82.8%;11.8%的决策显示部分一致,5.4%的决策显示不一致。年龄大于77岁且美国麻醉医师学会分级≥III的患者更容易出现不一致。结论:ChatGPT提出的建议与传统的多学科团队会议提供的建议有很大的一致性,这表明人工智能在支持结直肠癌治疗的临床决策方面具有潜在的应用价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信