Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Tumour Boards for Oncology Treatment Recommendations (BEACON)

28 de julio de 2026 actualizado por: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

Benchmarking AI for Clinical Oncology decisioNmaking (BEACON): A Prospective, Multicentre, Blinded Evaluation of Frontier Large Language Models Against Multidisciplinary Tumour Board Recommendations in Oncology Treatment Planning

BEACON (Benchmarking AI for Clinical Oncology decisioNmaking) is a prospective, multicentre, comparative, blinded, non-interventional benchmark evaluating the treatment recommendations of five frontier large language models (LLMs) against the recommendations of multidisciplinary tumour boards (RCP) in oncology treatment planning. One hundred standardised synthetic cases (20 per localisation, across breast, lung, urological, digestive and gynaecological cancers) are submitted as identical structured input to two independent tumour boards per localisation and to five frontier LLMs. Each recommendation - human or model - is decomposed into five predefined decision domains (intent, surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, work-up and biomarkers) and scored 0/1/2 for concordance against a two-tier reference: the consensus of the two tumour boards, complemented by an a priori locked guideline matrix (ESMO, NCCN). The primary endpoint is domain-level concordance between LLM and RCP consensus, expressed as a linearly weighted Cohen's kappa. A co-primary safety endpoint captures the proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential, because concordance alone can conceal dangerous errors. Because expert boards may disagree with one another on identical cases, model performance is always interpreted against the human consensus. BEACON is designed as reusable, openly licensed, pre-registered infrastructure: all synthetic cases, evaluation rubrics, the locked guideline matrix, scoring algorithms and verbatim prompts are released for full reproducibility.

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

BEACON is a prospective, multicentre, blinded benchmark using automated, criteria-based scoring. It is built on three design decisions that distinguish it from the existing literature: (i) synthetic, standardised cases remove the record-completeness variability that confounds retrospective comparisons and allow the identical input to be given to every board and every model; (ii) two independent tumour boards per localisation let human-human agreement be measured rather than assumed; and (iii) a guideline matrix, locked a priori, provides an objective anchor applied identically to human and model recommendations.

Reference standard. For each case-domain, a guideline matrix (guideline-recommended / acceptable / unsupported options per case-domain; ESMO, NCCN), locked and time-stamped before data collection, is applied identically to boards and models.

Five decision domains. Every recommendation is decomposed into D1 Intent, D2 Surgery, D3 Radiotherapy, D4 Systemic therapy (class + line), and D5 Work-up & biomarkers before any comparison.

Tipo de estudio

De observación

Inscripción (Estimado)

100

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Estudio Contacto

Copia de seguridad de contactos de estudio

Ubicaciones de estudio

      • Paris, Francia
        • Reclutamiento
        • Hôpital Europeén Georges Pompidou
        • Contacto:

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

  • Adulto
  • Adulto Mayor

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Método de muestreo

Muestra no probabilística

Población de estudio

100 synthetic oncology treatment-planning cases (20 per localisation) across five localisations: breast, lung, urological (prostate, bladder / upper-tract urothelial, kidney), digestive and gynaecological. Each case is a structured JSON input specifying UICC 8th-edition stage, biomarkers, ECOG performance status, comorbidities and a standardised clinical question. No human participants, no patient data and no identifiable individuals. Recommendations are produced by two independent tumour boards per localisation and by five frontier LLMs (queried May 2026).

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Synthetic oncology case within one of the five predefined localisations (breast, lung, urological, digestive, gynaecological).
  • Complete structured schema: UICC 8th-edition stage, biomarkers, ECOG performance status, comorbidities and a standardised clinical question.
  • A clinically answerable treatment-planning question that is mappable to the locked guideline matrix.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Case outside the five predefined localisations.
  • Incomplete, internally inconsistent or ambiguous schema.
  • Duplicate or near-duplicate of an existing case in the set.
  • Question not resolvable by current guidelines.

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

Cohortes e Intervenciones

Grupo / Cohorte
Intervención / Tratamiento
Breast cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Lung cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Urological cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Digestive cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Gynaecological cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Domain-level performance between LLM recommendations and the locked guidelines.
Periodo de tiempo: Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (~October 2026)
For each recommendation domain and each LLM, proportion of LLM recommendation concordant with locked guidelines
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (~October 2026)

Medidas de resultado secundarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential ( LLM and tumour boards)
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Up to October 2026
Domain-level recommendation concordance between LLM and tumour-boards
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Each recommendation domain, decomposed into the five decision domains and scored per domain on an ordinal scale (2 = complete concordance; 1 = partial concordance; 0 = discordance).
Up to October 2026
Inter-tumour board domain-level recommendation concordance
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Agreement between the two independent tumour boards scored per recommendation domain
Up to October 2026
Equipoise rate
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of case-domains where the two tumour boards give different categorical recommendations
Up to October 2026
Completeness
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of required domains addressed (LLM and tumour boards)
Up to October 2026
Missingness
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of critical omissions (LLM and tumour boards)
Up to October 2026
Intensity bias
Periodo de tiempo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of recommendation corresponding to over- or under-treatment
Up to October 2026

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

1 de mayo de 2026

Finalización primaria (Estimado)

1 de octubre de 2026

Finalización del estudio (Estimado)

1 de octubre de 2026

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

28 de julio de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

28 de julio de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

31 de julio de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

31 de julio de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

28 de julio de 2026

Última verificación

1 de julio de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

INDECISO

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir