MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416910393 · doi:10.1177/19160216251387617

Thyroid Nodule Experts Evaluating ChatGPT’s Assessment of Thyroid Nodules Classified by the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology

2025· article· en· W4416910393 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexander Moise, Luiza Tatar, Noa Sela, Sabrina Daniela da Silva, Jasmine Kouz, Michael Tamilia, Michael P. Hier, Véronique‐Isabelle Forest, Richard J. Payne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThyroid nodulesBethesda systemThyroidThyroid cancerNodule (geology)CytopathologyMalignancyLikert scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ImportanceChatGPT has emerged as a medical resource through advanced language processing. Patients with thyroid nodules classified under The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) may use it to complement discussions with physicians.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine whether ChatGPT's recommendations on managing thyroid nodules classified by TBSRTC align with those of experienced thyroid specialists.Setting/ParticipantsA multidisciplinary panel of 5 thyroid cancer specialists, including otolaryngologists and endocrinologists, from 3 university-affiliated teaching hospitals in Montreal, Canada, evaluated the responses.Intervention/ExposureChatGPT-3.5 was prompted with 4 questions for each of the 6 Bethesda categories regarding the meaning and management of thyroid nodules, generating 24 responses for evaluation.Main Outcome/MeasuresWe assessed ChatGPT's accuracy against the latest American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines using a 4-point Likert scale (<50%, 50-74%, 75-89%, >90%). Additionally, specialists rated their comfort or reluctance in recommending ChatGPT as a complementary tool for patient discussions.ResultsOf the 24 ChatGPT-generated responses, 19 (79.2%) demonstrated moderate to good consistency with the ATA guidelines. The mean consistency score was 3.38/4 and median was 3.5. Consensus (IQR ≤ 1) was achieved in 23 out of 24 responses (95.8%), reflecting strong inter-rater reliability. Consistency scores were highest in Bethesda I-III and declined progressively in higher-risk categories, with the lowest mean score observed in Bethesda VI. Similarly, an upward trend in clinician reluctance was observed from Bethesda I through VI, indicating greater caution in recommending ChatGPT responses for patients suspicious for or diagnosed with malignancy (Bethesda V-VI).Conclusion and RelevanceWhile ChatGPT's responses generally align with specialist recommendations, they are not fully reliable. ChatGPT lacks the ability to serve as an independent or accurate source of medical advice for thyroid nodule management. It remains a useful complement for patient discussions, especially in low-risk scenarios, but further improvements are necessary to make it a safe, reliable component of patient care in complex cases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207