Would Artificial Intelligence Make ‘Good’ Decisions About Thyroid Nodule Biopsies?

Clicks: 10
ID: 337625
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #433 of 448 articles by views in the journal of clinical endocrinology & metabolism

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 448 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for clinical decision support (CDS), but evaluation under clinical equipoise-scenarios lacking a consensus correct answer-remains rare. We evaluated commercially available LLM performance for thyroid nodule biopsy recommendations under clinical equipoise. METHODS: One hundred clinical vignettes describing patients with incidentally discovered thyroid nodules of varying sizes and risk features were presented to 94 clinicians, recruited by convenience sampling from professional networks, and multiple LLMs (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 3.5/4.0/4.5, Llama 3.2-90B, Deepseek R1, and OpenEvidence). Responses were dichotomized as biopsy versus no biopsy. Agreement was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha, and a deterministic algorithm served as a provisional benchmark. Selected LLM responses were reviewed by experts. RESULTS: Clinicians recommended biopsy in 58% of responses (95% CI 50%, 66%), with unanimous responses in only 50 vignettes. LLM biopsy rates ranged from 46% (Claude 3.5) to 74% (Llama 3.2-90B). LLM-clinician agreement was moderate (α = 0.372-0.453). Agreement with the deterministic algorithm ranged from high (α = 0.954, Detailed TIRADS GPT-5) to low (α = 0.265, Claude Sonnet 4.5). Llama 3.2-90B recommended biopsy in 8 of 8 cases where clinicians unanimously recommended against it. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs differed meaningfully in biopsy recommendation patterns, with potential population-level consequences. Evaluating and aligning LLMs for CDS under equipoise requires stakeholders and processes analogous to clinical guideline committees. Because LLMs used as CDS could powerfully disseminate different practice patterns, this creates new responsibilities for guidelines committees and other stakeholders.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224118887 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Abhay Barage, Mia D. Austria, Emily Vertosick, Laura Boucai, Azeez Farooki, Stephanie A. Fish, Samantha Kass Newman, Armando Patrizio, Lubaina S. Presswala, Tyler Ryan, Mona M. Sabra, Rebecca Zeuren, Andrew Julian Vickers, Gilad J. Kuperman, Jessica S. Ancker, Scott Y H Kim, Robert Michael Tuttle, James Flory
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal the journal of clinical endocrinology & metabolism
Year 2026
DOI
10.1210/clinem/dgag433
URL
https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgag433
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.