此页面是自动翻译的,不保证翻译的准确性。请参阅 英文版 对于源文本。

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

2026年7月28日 更新者: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.

研究概览

详细说明

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.

研究类型

观察性的

注册 (估计的)

100

联系人和位置

本节提供了进行研究的人员的详细联系信息,以及有关进行该研究的地点的信息。

学习联系方式

研究联系人备份

学习地点

      • Paris、法国
        • 招聘中
        • Hôpital Europeén Georges Pompidou
        • 接触:

参与标准

研究人员寻找符合特定描述的人,称为资格标准。这些标准的一些例子是一个人的一般健康状况或先前的治疗。

资格标准

适合学习的年龄

  • 成人
  • 年长者

接受健康志愿者

不

取样方法

非概率样本

研究人群

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).

描述

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.

学习计划

本节提供研究计划的详细信息,包括研究的设计方式和研究的衡量标准。

研究是如何设计的?

设计细节

队列和干预

团体/队列
干预/治疗
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.

研究衡量的是什么?

主要结果指标

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Domain-level performance between LLM recommendations and the locked guidelines.
大体时间: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)

次要结果测量

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential ( LLM and tumour boards)
大体时间:Up to October 2026
Up to October 2026
Domain-level recommendation concordance between LLM and tumour-boards
大体时间: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
大体时间:Up to October 2026
Agreement between the two independent tumour boards scored per recommendation domain
Up to October 2026
Equipoise rate
大体时间:Up to October 2026
Proportion of case-domains where the two tumour boards give different categorical recommendations
Up to October 2026
Completeness
大体时间:Up to October 2026
Proportion of required domains addressed (LLM and tumour boards)
Up to October 2026
Missingness
大体时间:Up to October 2026
Proportion of critical omissions (LLM and tumour boards)
Up to October 2026
Intensity bias
大体时间:Up to October 2026
Proportion of recommendation corresponding to over- or under-treatment
Up to October 2026

合作者和调查者

在这里您可以找到参与这项研究的人员和组织。

研究记录日期

这些日期跟踪向 ClinicalTrials.gov 提交研究记录和摘要结果的进度。研究记录和报告的结果由国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 审查,以确保它们在发布到公共网站之前符合特定的质量控制标准。

研究主要日期

学习开始 (实际的)

2026年5月1日

初级完成 (估计的)

2026年10月1日

研究完成 (估计的)

2026年10月1日

研究注册日期

首次提交

2026年7月28日

首先提交符合 QC 标准的

2026年7月28日

首次发布 (实际的)

2026年7月31日

研究记录更新

最后更新发布 (实际的)

2026年7月31日

上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新

2026年7月28日

最后验证

2026年7月1日

更多信息

此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.

订阅