SynthesisCancer medicine2017
The application of crowdsourcing approaches to cancer research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2020Pooled it
- Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- The application of crowdsourcing approaches to cancer research: a systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Assessing Interventions on Crowdsourcing Platforms to Nudge Patients for Engagement Behaviors in Primary Care Settings: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Categorizing health beliefs among cancer survivors using latent profile analysis to identify targets for promoting medication adherence and quality of life.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- "Lost in translation?" Animal research in the era of precision medicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- A Perspective on Crowdsourcing and Human-in-the-Loop Workflows in Precision Health.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Developing Crowdsourced Clinical Registry Studies.The American journal of nursing · 2024Review
- Task design for crowdsourced glioma cell annotation in microscopy images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- FDA Oncology Center of Excellence Crowdsourcing Initiative: Outreach to the Scientific Community to Identify Research Questions for Pooled Analyses of Oncology Clinical Trial Data.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Article
- The Future of Precision Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Social innovations to increase health coverage: evidence from a crowdsourcing contest in Ghana.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Patients', pharmacists', and prescribers' attitude toward using blockchain and machine learning in a proposed ePrescription system: online survey.JAMIA open · 2022Article
- Applying citizen science to engage families affected by ovarian cancer in developing genetic service outreach strategies.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Pursuing Better Biomarkers for Immunotherapy Response in Cancer Through a Crowdsourced Data Challenge.JCO precision oncology · 2021Article
- Crowdsourcing to measure financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.Gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crowdsourcing is "the practice of obtaining participants, services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, especially via the Internet." (Ranard et al. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 29:187, 2014) Although crowdsourcing has been adopted in healthcare research and its potential for analyzing large datasets and obtaining rapid feedback has recently been recognized, no systematic reviews of crowdsourcing in cancer research have been conducted. Therefore, we sought to identify applications of and explore potential uses for crowdsourcing in cancer research. We conducted a systematic review of articles published between January 2005 and June 2016 on crowdsourcing in cancer research, using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychINFO, and Embase. Data from the 12 identified articles were summarized but not combined statistically. The studies addressed a range of cancers (e.g., breast, skin, gynecologic, colorectal, prostate). Eleven studies collected data on the Internet using web-based platforms; one recruited participants in a shopping mall using paper-and-pen data collection. Four studies used Amazon Mechanical Turk for recruiting and/or data collection. Study objectives comprised categorizing biopsy images (n = 6), assessing cancer knowledge (n = 3), refining a decision support system (n = 1), standardizing survivorship care-planning (n = 1), and designing a clinical trial (n = 1). Although one study demonstrated that "the wisdom of the crowd" (NCI Budget Fact Book, 2017) could not replace trained experts, five studies suggest that distributed human intelligence could approximate or support the work of trained experts. Despite limitations, crowdsourcing has the potential to improve the quality and speed of research while reducing costs. Longitudinal studies should confirm and refine these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.