Clinical Reasoning AI for Oncology Treatment Planning: A Multi-Specialty Case-Based Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20869v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:26:05 GMT
• Title: Clinical Reasoning AI for Oncology Treatment Planning: A Multi-Specialty Case-Based Evaluation
• Abstract summary: More than 80% of U.S. cancer care is delivered in community settings.<n>Clinicians must integrate genomics, staging, pathology, and changing guidelines, creating cognitive burden.<n>We evaluated OncoBrain, an AI clinical reasoning platform for oncology treatmentplan generation.
• Score: 0.7695487047291749
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: More than 80% of U.S. cancer care is delivered in community settings, where survival remains worse than at academic centers. Clinicians must integrate genomics, staging, radiology, pathology, and changing guidelines, creating cognitive burden. We evaluated OncoBrain, an AI clinical reasoning platform for oncology treatment-plan generation, as an early step toward OGI. Methods: OncoBrain combines general-purpose LLMs with a cancer-specific graph retrieval-augmented generation layer, a gold-standard treatment-plan corpus as long-term memory, and a model-agnostic safety layer (CHECK) for hallucination detection and suppression. We evaluated clinician-enriched case summaries across gynecologic, genitourinary, neuro-oncology, gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary, and hematologic malignancies. Three clinician groups completed structured evaluations of 173 cases using a common 16-item instrument: subspecialist oncologists reviewed 50 cases, physician reviewers 78, and advanced practice providers 45. Results: Ratings were highest for scientific accuracy, evidence support, and safety, with lower but favorable scores for workflow integration and time savings. On a 5-point scale, mean alignment with evidence and guidelines was 4.60, 4.56, and 4.70 across subspecialists, physician reviewers, and advanced practice providers. Mean scores for absence of safety or misinformation concerns were 4.80, 4.40, and 4.60. Workflow integration averaged 4.50, 3.94, and 4.00; perceived time savings averaged 5.00, 3.89, and 3.60. Conclusions: In this multi-specialty vignette-based evaluation, OncoBrain generated oncology treatment plans judged guideline-concordant, clinically acceptable, and easy to supervise. These findings support the potential of a carefully engineered AI reasoning platform to assist oncology treatment planning and justify prospective real-world evaluation in community settings.

Related papers

• Emergency Department Revisit Quality Review Screening: Exploring Human Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Support [0.5272195843074776]
  We created an algorithm to automatically screen for potentially concerning pairs, then preliminarily assessed.<n>Among clinician raters, revisit medical gravity was consistently significantly associated with the target.<n>The KGA achieved 83-100% positive predictive value for at least one clinician rater determining further assessment was warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T16:37:35Z)
• Towards Precision Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Clinical-Reasoning LLM for Risk Stratification and Treatment Guidance [69.07885031885303]
  We present HCC-STAR (Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging, Treatment And pRognosis), a clinically aligned large language model.<n>It outputs risk score-based staging, ranked guideline-consistent treatments with evidence-based rationales, and individualized survival estimates.<n>In a multi-center cohort of 6,668 patients from 12 hospitals in China, HCC-STAR achieved state-of-the-art performance in treatment recommendation and risk stratification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T15:33:08Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases [71.12461204050985]
  MedSP1000 is an SP-derived interactive benchmark for clinical-agent evaluation.<n>It converts peer-reviewed SP teaching cases into executable scenarios with defined SP case scripts, clinical environment contexts, and human-validated structured rubrics.<n>Applying MedSP1000 to a range of general-purpose and medically specialized LLMs, we find that performance on static benchmarks does not reliably translate to such educational scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:17:16Z)
• A Breast Vision Pathology Foundation Model for Real-world Clinical Utility [65.57568187389113]
  We present bfBRAVE, a breast-adaptive pathology foundation model developed and evaluated using a total resource of 101,638 breast wholeslide images.<n>BRAVE supported practical roles in the clinical workflow, including safe exclusion of low-risk cases from routine AI-assisted second-review rescue of initially missed positives and prioritization of cases for further assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T07:44:39Z)
• Case-Specific Rubrics for Clinical AI Evaluation: Methodology, Validation, and LLM-Clinician Agreement Across 823 Encounters [3.018184429993625]
  Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment.<n>Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health.<n>Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T17:17:56Z)
• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• Clinical Validation of Medical-based Large Language Model Chatbots on Ophthalmic Patient Queries with LLM-based Evaluation [1.6570903210287165]
  Domain specific large language models are increasingly used to support patient education, triage, and clinical decision making in ophthalmology.<n>This study evaluated four small medical LLMs Meerkat-7B, BioMistral-7B, OpenBioLLM-8B, and MedLLaMA3-v20 in answering ophthalmology related patient queries.<n>Overall, medical LLMs demonstrated potential for safe ophthalmic question answering, but gaps remained in clinical depth and consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T07:00:20Z)
• Evolving Diagnostic Agents in a Virtual Clinical Environment [75.59389103511559]
  We present a framework for training large language models (LLMs) as diagnostic agents with reinforcement learning.<n>Our method acquires diagnostic strategies through interactive exploration and outcome-based feedback.<n>DiagAgent significantly outperforms 10 state-of-the-art LLMs, including DeepSeek-v3 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T17:19:47Z)
• Cancer Diagnosis Categorization in Electronic Health Records Using Large Language Models and BioBERT: Model Performance Evaluation Study [0.1625256372381793]
  We analyzed 762 unique diagnoses (326 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code descriptions, 436free-text entries) from 3456 records of patients with cancer.<n>Models were tested on their ability to categorize diagnoses into 14predefined categories.<n>GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Llama showed lower overall performance on both formats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T16:50:40Z)
• Beyond Diagnosis: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs for Pathology Localization in Chest Radiographs [33.80781505782195]
  We evaluate two general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and a domain-specific model (MedGemma) in their ability to localize pathologies on chest radiographs.<n>GPT-5 exhibited a localization accuracy of 49.7%, followed by GPT-4 (39.1%) and MedGemma (17.7%), all lower than a task-specific CNN baseline (59.9%) and a radiologist benchmark (80.1%)<n>GPT-4 performed well on pathologies with fixed anatomical locations, but struggled with spatially variable findings and exhibited implausible predictions more frequently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T16:54:23Z)
• An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning [69.46279475491164]
  We introduce DeepRare, the first rare disease diagnosis agentic system powered by a large language model (LLM)<n>DeepRare generates ranked diagnostic hypotheses for rare diseases, each accompanied by a transparent chain of reasoning.<n>The system demonstrates exceptional diagnostic performance among 2,919 diseases, achieving 100% accuracy for 1013 diseases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T13:42:26Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• How Well Can Modern LLMs Act as Agent Cores in Radiology Environments? [54.36730060680139]
  RadA-BenchPlat is an evaluation platform that benchmarks the performance of large language models (LLMs) in radiology environments.<n>The platform also defines ten categories of tools for agent-driven task solving and evaluates seven leading LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:20:16Z)
• LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation [29.913581347375256]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making.<n>Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process.<n>LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T02:43:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.