ArticlePloS one2018
Gene expression assay and Watson for Oncology for optimization of treatment in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Multicenter randomized comparative trial of Micromedex, Micromedex with Watson, or Google to answer drug information questions.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Trial
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Retracted: A Deep Neural Network for Estimating Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol From Electronic Health Records: Real-Time Routine Clinical Application.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Predicting of Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Breast Cancer Patients with Clinically Negative Nodes: A Validation Study.Cancers · 2021Article
- When Predictive Models Collide.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: A New Disruptive Force in Orthopaedics.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2020Review
- Comparison of Annotation Services for Next-Generation Sequencing in a Large-Scale Precision Oncology Program.JCO precision oncology · 2020Article
- Concordance Study Between IBM Watson for Oncology and Real Clinical Practice for Cervical Cancer Patients in China: A Retrospective Analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonalized treatment for cancer patients is a hot topic of debate, particularly the decision to initiate chemotherapy in patients with Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative tumors in the early stages of breast cancer (BC). Owing to significant advancements in information technology (IT) and genomics, clinicians are increasingly attaining therapeutic goals rapidly and safely by effectively differentiating patient subsets that require chemotherapy. IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system employed by clinicians to provide evidence-based treatment options for cancer. WFO aids in clinical diagnosis, with claims that it may be superior in performance to human clinicians. The current study was based on the hypothesis that WFO alone cannot effectively determine whether or not chemotherapy is essential for the subset of ER-positive, HER2-negative BC patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom December 2015 to July 2017, 95 patients with ER-positive, HER2- negative BC subjected to treatment were retrospectively examined using WFO, and outputs compared to real clinical practice. Treatment options were suggested by WFO, and WFO recommendations calculated both with and without data from the gene expression assay (GEA).
resultsWFO without GEA was unable to determine the groups of patients that did not require chemotherapy. Concordant therapeutic recommendations between real clinical practice and WFO without GEA were obtained for 23.2% of the patient group. On the other hand, the results of WFO with GEA showed good clinical applicability. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of WFO with GEA were 100%, 80%, 61% and 100%, respectively.
conclusionsOur collective findings indicate that WFO without the gene expression assay has limited clinical utility.
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.