A collective capability boundary in frontier large language models on guideline-conformant and case-specific oncology decision-making
Large language models (LLMs) achieve high scores on medical knowledge examinations, yet real-world oncology is not a knowledge test--it is a sequence of guideline-pathway choices, escalation judgments, and commitments under uncertainty. Existing benchmarks largely measure factual recall, leaving open whether frontier LLMs share decision-path blind spots that combining models cannot fix. We built the Oncology Decision Boundary Benchmark (ODBB)--2,005 oncology decision points across NCCN guidelines and colorectal cancer cases--and evaluated nine frontier LLMs (four closed-source, five open-weight families) released between June 2025 and April 2026. A fully deterministic scorer (zero LLM inference) classified outputs into 14 failure types, independently validated by two oncologists (Cohen's weighted $κ$ = 0.939 and 0.790) on a 225-item stratified sample. Treating the nine as a pooled super-model, 42.1% (Wilson 95% CI 40.0--44.3%) of all items--35.7% of the 1,586 NCCN items and 66.4% of the 419 colorectal-cancer cases--were answered correctly by none, with failures concentrated in choosing between guideline pathways before reasoning within any: a consistent blind spot in clinical meta-judgment that likely requires architectural intervention rather than more training data. Two models tuned for decisiveness (GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview) made unsafe commitments three to five times more often than the seven cautious models without scoring higher. In 3--9% of items, models stated the correct next clinical step yet did not commit to it--failures of decision, not knowledge. Model quality is no longer the primary bottleneck for clinical LLM deployment; the binding constraint is the assumption that any single model can be the sole basis for a clinical decision. Progress requires architectures that detect when a model reaches its competence boundary and route the decision to a clinician.