ArticlePloS one2019
Early experience with Watson for oncology in Korean patients with colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in colorectal surgery: an AI-powered systematic review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of Watson for Oncology in clinical application.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team recommendations in the management of colorectal cancer liver metastases.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in multidisciplinary tumor boards enhancing decision making and clinical outcomes in oncology.iScience · 2025Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Software be Utilised for Thyroid Multi-Disciplinary Team Outcomes?Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025Article
- Digital decision support for structural improvement of melanoma tumor boards: using standard cases to optimize workflow.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in urologic oncology: the actual clinical practice results of IBM Watson for Oncology in South Korea.Prostate international · 2023Article
- Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Validation and implementation of a mobile app decision support system for prostate cancer to improve quality of tumor boards.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Review
- Article
- Concordance Study in Hepatectomy Recommendations Between Watson for Oncology and Clinical Practice for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Hematology: Current Challenges and Opportunities.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2020Review
- Concordance Between Watson for Oncology and Multidisciplinary Teams in Colorectal Cancer: Prognostic Implications and Predicting Concordance.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Progress of Artificial Intelligence in Gynecological Malignant Tumors.Cancer management and research · 2020Review
- Application of artificial intelligence to the diagnosis and therapy of colorectal cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2020Review
- Use of Natural Language Processing to Extract Clinical Cancer Phenotypes from Electronic Medical Records.Cancer research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWatson for oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system providing decision support. We evaluated the concordance rates between the treatment options determined by WFO and those determined by a multidisciplinary team (MDT).
methodsWe reviewed the medical charts of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer who visited the MDT at a single tertiary medical center from November 2016 to April 2017. WFO classified the treatment options for specific patients into three categories: 'Recommended', 'For consideration', and 'Not recommended'. Concordance rates between the WFO- and MDT-determined chemotherapy options, and the factors that potentially influence the concordance rate, were analyzed.
resultsSixty-nine patients with colorectal cancer met with the MDT from Nov. 2016 to Feb. 2017. The mean age of the patients was 62 years (range: 34-86 years), and more patients were male (47/69) than female. Of the 69 patients, 51 (73.9%) were diagnosed with colon cancer, of whom 46.4% received the same regimen recommendation from WFO ('Recommended') as they did from the MDT. After inclusion of the 'For consideration' category from WFO, the concordance rate increased to 87.0%. The concordance rate between MDT and NCCN guidelines was 97.1%, and that between the WFO and NCCN guidelines was 88.4%. The concordance rates between WFO and MDT were significantly lower in patients with stage II, IIIC, or IV disease (P<0.001), and the colorectal cancer stage was the only statistically significant factor discriminating between WFO and MDT.
conclusionsThe concordance rate between chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer determined by MDT versus WFO recommendations was 46.4%. After including the 'For consideration' category from WFO, the concordance rate increased to 88.4%. Further modification and improvement of the WFO prioritizing algorithm used to recommend treatment may increase the usefulness of WFO in the clinic.
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.