Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Tumour Boards for Oncology Treatment Recommendations (BEACON)
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
研究概览
地位
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
注册 (估计的)
联系人和位置
学习联系方式
- 姓名:Jérôme Lambert, MD PhD
- 电话号码:+33 0142499742
- 邮箱:jerome.lambert@u-paris.fr
研究联系人备份
- 姓名:Jean-Emmanuel Bibault, MD PhD
- 电话号码:+33 01 56 09 34 06
- 邮箱:jean-emmanuel.bibault@aphp.fr
学习地点
-
-
-
Paris、法国
- 招聘中
- Hôpital Europeén Georges Pompidou
-
接触:
- Jean-Emmanuel Bibault, MD PhD
- 电话号码:+33 01 56 09 28 34
- 邮箱:jean-emmanuel.bibault@aphp.fr
-
-
参与标准
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
- 成人
- 年长者
接受健康志愿者
取样方法
研究人群
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
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
研究记录日期
研究主要日期
学习开始 (实际的)
初级完成 (估计的)
研究完成 (估计的)
研究注册日期
首次提交
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
首次发布 (实际的)
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
最后验证
更多信息
与本研究相关的术语
关键字
其他相关的 MeSH 术语
其他研究编号
- APHP261032
计划个人参与者数据 (IPD)
计划共享个人参与者数据 (IPD)?
药物和器械信息、研究文件
研究美国 FDA 监管的药品
研究美国 FDA 监管的设备产品
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.