ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Concordance Between Watson for Oncology and a Multidisciplinary Clinical Decision-Making Team for Gastric Cancer and the Prognostic Implications: Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of Helicobacter Pylori Infection in Endoscopic Images: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: innovations, integration, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Assessing TDApp: An AI-based clinical decision support system for ADHD treatment recommendations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- AI-driven transformation of precision medicine: a comprehensive narrative review of key application areas, emerging paradigms, and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Nanomedicine and Organ-specific Therapy: An Updated Review.Current drug targets · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Perioperative Planning and Management of Liver Resection.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- The Fidelity of Artificial Intelligence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations for Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in urologic oncology: the actual clinical practice results of IBM Watson for Oncology in South Korea.Prostate international · 2023Article
- Watson for oncology decision system for treatment consistency study in breast cancer.Clinical and experimental 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
- A Digital Solution for an Advanced Breast Tumor Board: Pilot Application Cocreation and Implementation Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Assessing the decision quality of artificial intelligence and oncologists of different experience in different regions in breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Identifying cancer-associated leukocyte profiles using high-resolution flow cytometry screening and machine learning.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Health Equity in Oncology: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in perioperative management of major gastrointestinal surgeries.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Conversion of a colorectal cancer guideline into clinical decision trees with assessment of validity.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021Article
- Strategies for Testing Intervention Matching Schemes in Cancer.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing number of cancer treatments, the emergence of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) provides patients with personalized treatment options. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly in the medical field. There has been a gradual tendency to replace traditional diagnosis and treatment with AI. IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) has been proven to be useful for decision-making in breast cancer and lung cancer, but to date, research on gastric cancer is limited.
objectiveThis study compared the concordance of WFO with MDT and investigated the impact on patient prognosis.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed eligible patients (N=235) with gastric cancer who were evaluated by an MDT, received corresponding recommended treatment, and underwent follow-up. Thereafter, physicians inputted the information of all patients into WFO manually, and the results were compared with the treatment programs recommended by the MDT. If the MDT treatment program was classified as "recommended" or "considered" by WFO, we considered the results concordant. All patients were divided into a concordant group and a nonconcordant group according to whether the WFO and MDT treatment programs were concordant. The prognoses of the two groups were analyzed.
resultsThe overall concordance of WFO and the MDT was 54.5% (128/235) in this study. The subgroup analysis found that concordance was less likely in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors than in patients with HER2-negative tumors (P=.02). Age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, differentiation type, and clinical stage were not found to affect concordance. Among all patients, the survival time was significantly better in concordant patients than in nonconcordant patients (P<.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that concordance was an independent prognostic factor of overall survival in patients with gastric cancer (hazard ratio 0.312 [95% CI 0.187-0.521]).
conclusionsThe treatment recommendations made by WFO and the MDT were mostly concordant in gastric cancer patients. If the WFO options are updated to include local treatment programs, the concordance will greatly improve. The HER2 status of patients with gastric cancer had a strong effect on the likelihood of concordance. Generally, survival was better in concordant patients than in nonconcordant patients.
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.