Large language models require reproducible outputs for systematic evaluation in tumor boards. We developed a sarcoma tumor-board simulator using Claude Opus 4.5 at temperature 0.0, schema-enforced JSON output, and prompt-specified semantic and conditional-logic rules. The framework was evaluated on 51 de-identified cases across 154 runs. Reproducibility was defined as agreement across all runs of a case per decision code. In the 41 cases not used during development, reproducibility was 94.2% (cluster-bootstrap 95% CI 91.9–96.1); in the 10 development cases, 93.3% (95% CI 88.6–97.6). Pooled, it was 94.0% (95% CI 92.0–95.8); 17 cases agreed on all 21 codes. Estimates are model-specific. A post hoc ablation on 15 cases compared the framework with and without these rules: 94.6% versus 82.5% (difference 12.1 points; 95% CI 7.6–17.1). The improvement was driven mainly by exact wording agreement in three free-text fields (+ 60.0 points), whereas the 18 categorical and numeric codes differed by 4.1 points (95% CI − 0.7 to 9.3). Without any schema, a decision was stated for only 37.6% of instances versus 100% under schema enforcement; seven codes were never addressed. Single-reviewer screening detected no fabricated numbers, references, or measurements. Clinical correctness was not assessed. Consistent recommendations may still be incorrect.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ammo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: