Dergiler / Abant Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

Guideline Concordance of Large Language Models in the Management of Ureteral Stones: A Clinical Vignette-Based Comparative Study

Engin Denizhan Demirkıran(Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University School of Medicine)0000-0002-0021-5402
Sayfa
196–206
Yayın Tarihi
2026-08-28
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Expert oversight remains necessary when LLM outputs are used for clinical decision support, and prompts should explicitly specify the reference guideline.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer medical questions, but their reliability in guideline-based urological decisions remains uncertain.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of three widely used LLMs with the European Association of Urology (EAU) 2026 guideline recommendations for the active management of ureteral stones.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Expert oversight remains necessary when LLM outputs are used for clinical decision support, and prompts should explicitly specify the reference guideline.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2026 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Artificial intelligence · Large language models · Urolithiasis

Abstract

Objective Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer medical questions, but their reliability in guideline-based urological decisions remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of three widely used LLMs with the European Association of Urology (EAU) 2026 guideline recommendations for the active management of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods In this cross-sectional, vignette-based comparative study, the EAU 2026 ureteral-stone treatment algorithm was converted into 40 standardized clinical vignettes (four groups of ten: proximal 10 mm, distal 10 mm). ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were queried with the same standardized prompt, which did not name a specific guideline. Responses were scored against predefined EAU-based reference answers using a binary system. Concordance was compared with Cochran’s Q test. Results A total of 120 LLM-generated responses were evaluated. Overall concordance was 96.7% (116/120). ChatGPT achieved complete concordance (40/40, 100%), while Gemini and Claude each achieved 95% (38/40); the difference was not significant (Cochran’s Q=2.67, p=0.264). Concordance was complete in all 10 mm scenarios requiring URS prioritization. All four discordances were “incorrect prioritization” in >10 mm stones, presenting shock-wave lithotripsy as co-equal to ureteroscopy; each involved cross-guideline conflation with American Urological Association (AUA) framing. No unsafe recommendation or guideline hallucination was observed under the predefined scoring categories. Conclusion The evaluated LLMs showed high concordance with EAU 2026 first-line treatment recommendations for ureteral stones. Concordance was complete in non–priority-sensitive <10 mm scenarios but decreased when the correct hierarchy between URS and SWL was required. Expert oversight remains necessary when LLM outputs are used for clinical decision support, and prompts should explicitly specify the reference guideline.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Demirkıran, E. D. (2026). Guideline Concordance of Large Language Models in the Management of Ureteral Stones: A Clinical Vignette-Based Comparative Study. Abant Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.47493/abantmedj.1979162

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (22)

  1. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2026 [Erişim Tarihi: 14.07.2026]. Erişilebilir adresi: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis
  2. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(6):887.
  3. Huo B, Boyle A, Marfo N, Kim S, Park H, Lee J, ve ark. Large language models for chatbot health advice studies: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(2):e2457879.
  4. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):771-80.
  5. Payton KSE, Martinez K, Green C, Gupta A, Harrison J, Thomas S, ve ark. Vignette research methodology: an essential tool for quality improvement collaboratives. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(1):7.
  6. OpenAI. Introducing GPT-5.5. 2026 [Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2026]. Erişilebilir adresi: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-5/
  7. Google. Gemini 3.5 Flash. 2026 [Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2026]. Erişilebilir adresi: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/gemini-3-5/
  8. Anthropic. Introducing Claude Opus 4.8. 2026 [Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2026]. Erişilebilir adresi: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8
  9. American Urological Association. Surgical Management of Kidney and Ureteral Stones: AUA Guideline (2026). J Urol. 2026. Erişilebilir adresi: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/guidelines/surgical-management-of-kidney-and-ureteral-stones
  10. Cakir H, Caglar U, Yildiz O, Meric A, Ayranci A, Ozgor F. Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions related to urolithiasis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2024;56(1):17-21.
  11. Song H, Xia Y, Luo Z, Liu H, Song Y, Zeng X, ve ark. Evaluating the performance of different large language models on health consultation and patient education in urolithiasis. J Med Syst. 2023;47(1):125.
  12. Cil G, Dogan K. The efficacy of artificial intelligence in urology: a detailed analysis of kidney stone-related queries. World J Urol. 2024;42(1):158.
  13. Talyshinskii A, Juliebø-Jones P, Hameed BMZ, Naik N, Adhikari K, Zhanbyrbekuly U, ve ark. ChatGPT as a clinical decision maker for urolithiasis: compliance with the current European Association of Urology guidelines. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;69:51-62.
  14. Altıntaş E, Ozkent MS, Gül M, Batur AF, Kaynar M, Kılıç Ö, Göktaş S. Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence chatbot recommendations for urolithiasis management: a study of EAU guideline compliance. Fr J Urol. 2024;34(13):102666.
  15. Gupta R, Pedraza AM, Gorin MA, Tewari AK. Defining the role of large language models in urologic care and research. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(1):1-13.
  16. Ates T, Tamkac N, Sukur IH, Ok F. What is the role of large language models in the management of urolithiasis?: a review. Urolithiasis. 2025;53(1):92.
  17. Pompili D, Richa Y, Collins P, Richards H, Hennessey DB. Using artificial intelligence to generate medical literature for urology patients: a comparison of three different large language models. World J Urol. 2024;42(1):455.
  18. Hershenhouse JS, Mokhtar D, Eppler M, Karim R, Zhang L, Wang J, ve ark. Accuracy, readability, and understandability of large language models for prostate cancer information to the public. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025;28(2):394-9.
  19. Doğan Ç, Şahin MF. How much can large language models of Artificial Intelligence inform patients about urodynamics? A comparative analysis. Anatolian Curr Med J. 2026;8(2):218-23.
  20. Sahin M, Akgül M, Akpınar Ç, Bolat D, Bozkurt O, İzol V, ve ark. What do the current popular artificial intelligence chatbots offer us regarding patient information? Comparison of responses from the ten most popular chatbots about bladder cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2025.
  21. Ortaç M, Ergül RB, Yazılı HB, Özervarlı MF, Tonyalı Ş, Sarılar Ö, Özgör F. ChatGPT’s competence in responding to urological emergencies. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2025;31(3):291-5.
  22. Artsi Y, Sorin V, Glicksberg BS, Korfiatis P, Nadkarni GN, Klang E. Large language models in real-world clinical workflows: a systematic review of applications and implementation. Front Digit Health. 2025;7:1659134.