Cited by 2Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentAI in cancer detection

Promise and Pitfalls of AI Chatbots in Complex Decision-Making for Thyroid Nodules and Papillary Thyroid Cancer

Open access
Effraimidis, Grigoris, Kasotas, Athanasios, Varsami, Sofia, Sazakli, Eleni, Karapanou, Olga, Saltiki, Katerina, Michalaki, Marina·2026·European Thyroid Journal

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in medicine, but their reliability in scenarios with multiple management options is unclear. Indeterminate thyroid nodules and low- and low-to-intermediate-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) represent such cases. Methods: In a nationwide web-based survey, 201 members of the Hellenic Endocrine Society evaluated 12 clinical vignettes on indeterminate thyroid nodules and low- and low-to-intermediate-risk PTC. Their responses were compared with those generated by four conversational AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek) at two time points, 11 months apart. DeepSeek was assessed only at the second time point. Chatbot outputs were assessed for agreement with endocrinologists’ predominant answers, concordance with the most guideline-consistent options (American and European Thyroid Association recommendations), temporal stability, and inter-model agreement. Results: Alignment between chatbots and endocrinologists’ predominant responses was limited, reaching at most 25% across scenarios. In contrast, concordance with the most guideline-consistent options was higher, up to 83% (10/12 scenarios), depending on the model and time point. Across 12 scenarios, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot changed their responses in 4, 7, and 5 scenarios, respectively, with some updates moving closer to, and others further from, guideline-based answers. Inter-model agreement ranged from 33 to 67%, indicating substantial variability among chatbots. Conclusion: AI chatbots show evolving but inconsistent performance in complex thyroid management scenarios. While guideline concordance can be relatively high, substantial variability across models, limited temporal reproducibility, and poor alignment with clinical practice highlight the need for ongoing longitudinal evaluation before safe integration into clinical decision-making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1530/etj-25-0385

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Russell SJ & Norvig P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 2021.
  2. [2]Ayers JW, Poliak A, Dredze M, et al. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. J Am Med Assoc Intern Med 2023 183 589– 596. (10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838) PMC10148230 37115527 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Howcroft A, Bennett-Weston A, Khan A, et al. AI chatbots versus human healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of empathy in patient care. Br Med Bull 2025 156 ldaf017. (10.1093/bmb/ldaf017) 41115171 PMC12536877 · DOI
  4. [4]Durante C, Grani G, Lamartina L, et al. The diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules: a review. J Am Med Assoc 2018 319 914– 924. (10.1001/jama.2018.0898) 29509871 · DOI
  5. [5]Guth S, Theune U, Aberle J, et al. Very high prevalence of thyroid nodules detected by high frequency (13 MHz) ultrasound examination. Eur J Clin Invest 2009 39 699– 706. (10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02162) 19601965 · DOI
  6. [6]Kitahara CM & Sosa JA. The changing incidence of thyroid cancer. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2016 12 646– 653. (10.1038/nrendo.2016.110) 27418023 PMC10311569 · DOI
  7. [7]Yu J. Trends in the incidence of thyroid cancer among US persons from 2000 to 2019. Cancer Epidemiol 2024 33 5– 10. (10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000827) PMC10702690 37477121 · DOI
  8. [8]Li Y, Che W, Yu Z, et al. The incidence trend of papillary thyroid carcinoma in the United States during 2003–2017. Cancer Control 2022 29 10732748221135447. (10.1177/10732748221135447) 36256588 PMC9583193 · DOI
  9. [9]Haissaguerre M, Groussin L, Lamartina L, et al. Key data from the 2024 European Thyroid Association annual meeting: differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Ann Endocrinol 2025 86 101707. (10.1016/j.ando.2025.101707) 39909103 · DOI
  10. [10]Ringel MD, Sosa JA, Baloch Z, et al. 2025 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid 2025 35 841– 985. (10.1177/10507256251363120) 40844370 PMC13090833 · DOI
  11. [11]Chang K, Berthelet E, Grubbs E, et al. Websites, websites everywhere: how thyroid cancer patients use the internet. J Cancer Educ 2020 35 1177– 1183. (10.1007/s13187-019-01576-5) 31332622 · DOI
  12. [12]Moy S, Irannejad M, Manning SJ, et al. Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in health care: a scoping review. J Patient Centered Res Rev 2024 11 51– 62. (10.17294/2330-0698.2029) PMC11000703 38596349 · DOI
  13. [13]Shahsavar Y & Choudhury A. User intentions to use ChatGPT for self-diagnosis and health-related purposes: cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Hum Factors 2023 10 e47564. (10.2196/47564) 37195756 PMC10233444 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [14]Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid 2016 26 1– 133. (10.1089/thy.2015.0020) 26462967 PMC4739132 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [15]Pacini F, Fuhrer D, Elisei R, et al. 2022 ETA consensus statement: indications for post-surgical radioiodine therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur Thyroid J 2022 11 e210046. (10.1530/ETJ-21-0046) 34981741 PMC9142814 · DOI
  16. [16]Durante C, Hegedüs L, Czarniecka A, et al. 2023 European Thyroid Association clinical practice guidelines for thyroid nodule management. Eur Thyroid J 2023 12 e230067. (10.1530/ETJ-23-0067) 37358008 PMC10448590 · DOI
  17. [17]Gorris MA, Randle RW, Obermiller CS, et al. Assessing ChatGPT’s capability in addressing thyroid cancer patient queries. J Endocr Soc 2025 9 bvaf003. (10.1210/jendso/bvaf003) 39881674 PMC11775116 · DOI
  18. [18]Goodman RS, Patrinely JR, Stone CA, et al. Accuracy and reliability of chatbot responses to physician questions. JAMA Netw Open 2023 6 e2336483. (10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36483) 37782499 PMC10546234 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [19]Effraimidis G, Sazakli E, Karapanou O, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma. Eur Thyroid J 2025 14 e250013. (10.1530/ETJ-25-0013) 40019776 PMC11949526 · DOI
  20. [20]Sazakli E, Karapanou O, Sykiotis GP, et al. Nationwide web survey on implementing the 2023 ETA guidelines for second-line management of thyroid nodules with atypia of undetermined significance. Hormones 2025 24 1003– 1011. (10.1007/s42000-025-00698-4) 40721567 PMC12678575 · DOI
  21. [21]Ali SZ, Baloch ZW, Cochand-Priollet B, et al. The 2023 Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Thyroid 2023 33 1039– 1044. (10.1089/thy.2023.0141) 37427847 · DOI
  22. [22]Huang RS, Benour A, Kemppainen J, et al. The future of AI clinicians. BMC Med Educ 2024 24 1133. (10.1186/s12909-024-06115-5) 39394122 PMC11470580 · DOI
  23. [23]Wang Y, Yang S, Zeng C, et al. Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in thyroid eye disease. Front Med 2025 12 1546706. (10.3389/fmed.2025.1546706) PMC11876178 40041459 · DOI
  24. [24]Rydzewski NR, Dinakaran D, Zhao SG, et al. Comparative evaluation of large language models in clinical oncology. NEJM AI 2024 1 5. (10.1056/AIoa2300151) PMC11315428 39131700 · DOI
  25. [25]Ponzo V, Rosato R, Scigliano MC, et al. Comparison of the accuracy and consistency of different AI chatbots in providing nutritional advice. J Clin Med 2024 13 7810. (10.3390/jcm13247810) 39768733 PMC11677083 · DOI
  26. [26]Deniz MS & Guler BY. Assessment of ChatGPT’s adherence to ETA thyroid nodule management guideline. Endocrine 2024 85 794– 802. (10.1007/s12020-024-03750-2) 38489133 · DOI
  27. [27]Sarangi PK & Mondal H. Response generated by large language models depends on the structure of the prompt. Indian J Radiol Imag 2024 34 574– 575. (10.1055/s-0044-1782165) PMC11188729 38912242 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [28]Gunesli I, Aksun S, Fathelbab J, et al. Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Gemini on PCOS management. Endocrine 2024 88 315– 322. (10.1007/s12020-024-04121-7) 39623241 · DOI
  29. [30]Sarangi PK, Irodi A, Panda S, et al. Radiological differential diagnoses based on imaging patterns. Indian J Radiol Imag 2024 34 269– 275. (10.1055/s-0043-1777289) PMC10972667 38549881 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [31]Sarangi PK, Datta S, Swarup MS, et al. Radiologic decision-making for imaging in pulmonary embolism. Indian J Radiol Imag 2024 34 653– 660. (10.1055/s-0044-1787974) PMC11419749 39318561 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Effraimidis, G., Kasotas, A., Varsami, S., Sazakli, E., Karapanou, O., Saltiki, K., & Michalaki, M.
Affiliations
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
  • 3
  • 5
  • 6
Corresponding author
Effraimidis, Grigoris
Venue
European Thyroid Journal
Published
2026-03-20
Volume
15
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 2235-0640 (ISSN-L)
  • 2235-0802
OpenAlex
W7140499232
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Thyroid Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Thessaly
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
AI chatbots, indeterminate thyroid nodules, low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, DeepSeek, inter-model agreement, guideline adherence, clinical vignettes
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Thyroid Cancer, Papillary, Intelligent Systems, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Thyroid Neoplasms, Thyroid Nodule

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review