ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Early experience with Watson for Oncology: a clinical decision-support system for prostate cancer treatment recommendations.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Personalised medicine through AI-enhanced integration of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy.European radiology experimental · 2025Review
- Music as an adjunct to analgesics for improved anxiety and pain during prostate biopsy.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Factors Guiding Clinical Decision-Making in Genitourinary Oncology.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Preliminary Evidence of the Use of Generative AI in Health Care Clinical Services: Systematic Narrative Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Review
- 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
- Novel research and future prospects of artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis and treatment.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2023Review
- Validation and implementation of a mobile app decision support system for prostate cancer to improve quality of tumor boards.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Assessing the decision quality of artificial intelligence and oncologists of different experience in different regions in breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- PCaGuard: A Software Platform to Support Optimal Management of Prostate Cancer.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Precision medicine in the era of artificial intelligence: implications in chronic disease management.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Perceptions, Attitudes, and Concerns on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Patients with Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeUrological oncologists have difficulty providing optimal personalized care due to rapid alterations in scientific research results, medical advancements, and treatment guidelines. IBM's Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an artificial intelligence clinical decision-support system that assists oncologists with evidence-based treatment recommendations. In the present study, we examined the level of concordance between the treatment recommendations for prostate cancer according to WFO and the actual treatments that the patients received in the department of urology.
methodsWe enrolled 201 patients who received prostate cancer treatment between January 2018 and June 2018. WFO provided treatment recommendations using clinical data in three categories: recommended, for consideration, and not recommended. These were compared with the actual treatments received by patients. Prostate cancer treatments were considered concordant if the received treatments were included in the "recommended" or "for consideration" categories by WFO.
resultsThe patients' mean age was 71.2 years. There were 60 (29.9%) and 114 (56.7%) patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score ≥ 1 and non-organ confined disease (stage III/IV), respectively. The overall prostate cancer treatment concordance rate was 73.6% ("recommended": 53.2%; "for consideration": 20.4%). An ECOG performance score ≥ 1 and older age (≥ 75 years) were significantly associated with discordance (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026, respectively) on multivariate analysis.
conclusionIn the present study, the treatment recommendations by WFO and the actual received treatments in the department of urology showed a relatively high concordance rate in prostate cancer 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.