Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30257820›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Using Artificial Intelligence (Watson for Oncology) for Treatment Recommendations Amongst Chinese Patients with Lung Cancer: Feasibility Study.

Chaoyuan Liu, Xianling Liu, Fang Wu, Mingxuan Xie, Yeqian Feng, Chunhong Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Chaoyuan LiuDepartment of Oncology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5632-3632
Xianling LiuDepartment of Oncology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4237-1227
Fang WuDepartment of Oncology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6627-3437
Mingxuan XieDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0866-8983
Yeqian FengDepartment of Oncology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7964-6784
Chunhong HuDepartment of Oncology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3857-4598

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is developing quickly in the medical field and can benefit both medical staff and patients. The clinical decision support system Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an outstanding representative AI in the medical field, and it can provide to cancer patients prompt treatment recommendations comparable with ones made by expert oncologists. WFO is increasingly being used in China, but limited reports on whether WFO is suitable for Chinese patients, especially patients with lung cancer, exist. Here, we report a retrospective study based on the consistency between the lung cancer treatment recommendations made for the same patient by WFO and by the multidisciplinary team at our center.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of using WFO for lung cancer cases in China and to ascertain ways to make WFO more suitable for Chinese patients with lung cancer.

methodsWe selected all lung cancer patients who were hospitalized and received antitumor treatment for the first time at the Second Xiangya Hospital Cancer Center from September to December 2017 (N=182). WFO made treatment recommendations for all supported cases (n=149). If the actual therapeutic regimen (administered by our multidisciplinary team) was recommended or for consideration according to WFO, we defined the recommendations as consistent; if the actual therapeutic regimen was not recommended by WFO or if WFO did not provide the same treatment option, we defined the recommendations as inconsistent. Blinded second round reviews were performed by our multidisciplinary team to reassess the incongruent cases.

resultsWFO did not support 18.1% (33/182) of recommendations among all cases. Of the 149 supported cases, 65.8% (98/149) received recommendations that were consistent with the recommendations of our team. Logistic regression analysis showed that pathological type and staging had significant effects on consistency (P=.004, odds ratio [OR] 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.45 and P<.001, OR 9.5, 95% CI 3.4-26.1, respectively). Age, gender, and presence of epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations had no effect on consistency. In 82% (42/51) of the inconsistent cases, our team administered two China-specific treatments, which were different from the recommendations made by WFO but led to excellent outcomes.

conclusionsIn China, most of the treatment recommendations of WFO are consistent with the recommendations of the expert group, although a relatively high proportion of cases are still not supported by WFO. Therefore, WFO cannot currently replace oncologists. WFO can improve the efficiency of clinical work by providing assistance to doctors, but it needs to learn the regional characteristics of patients to improve its assistive ability.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceChinaFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMedical OncologyRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligencecomparative studyinterdisciplinary communicationlung neoplasmsWatson for Oncology

Identifiers

PMID30257820
PMCPMC6231834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.