ArticleDigital health
ChatGPT-assisted evaluation of dysphagia in head and neck cancer radiotherapy patients: A practical tool.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the effectiveness of utilizing ChatGPT 4.0 to assist human physicians in assessing dysphagia in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Methods: This prospective study included 100 head and neck cancer (HNC) patients who visited our hospital between January 2025 and October 2025. All participants first underwent an independent dysphagia assessment in the control group conducted by a human physician (Physician A). Subsequently, they were evaluated in the experimental group by a similarly qualified physician (Physician B) with the assistance of ChatGPT 4.0. The comprehensive assessment results from an expert group consisting of two senior head and neck surgeons with ten years of experience served as the "gold standard." Consistency comparisons of the evaluation results among the three groups were conducted to validate the effectiveness of the language model-assisted assessment. Results: The consistency Kappa index between the experimental group and the expert group was 0.87, indicating a "good" level of consistency, significantly superior to the control group's 0.70. Subgroup analysis of different EAT-10 and MDADI score ranges showed that in 85 patients with EAT-10 scores ≥ 3: the control group accurately identified 72 cases, achieving an accuracy of 84.7%; the experimental group accurately identified 80 cases, with an accuracy of 94.1%. Among 78 patients with MDADI scores ≤ 69, the control group accurately identified 65 cases (accuracy of 83.3%), while the experimental group identified 73 cases accurately (93.6%). Conclusions: The assessment model combining large language models with human physicians effectively improves the accuracy and consistency of dysphagia assessment in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.