ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
Concordance Between Watson for Oncology and Multidisciplinary Teams in Colorectal Cancer: Prognostic Implications and Predicting Concordance.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 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 cancer multidisciplinary decision-making: concordance, predictive support and clinical translation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in multidisciplinary tumor boards enhancing decision making and clinical outcomes in oncology.iScience · 2025Review
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWatson for Oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system that provides clinical decision support. This study examined the concordance between the treatment recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) proposed by WFO and those recommended by the multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and evaluated the influence of concordance on the prognosis.
methodsWe retrospectively collected 175 patients with colorectal cancer who received treatment recommended by MDTs at a hospital in China, and evaluated them using WFO. Concordance between the two recommendations was analyzed. The overall survival was analyzed between concordant and non-concordant groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed and a concordance-predicting model was developed.
resultsConcordance between WFO' and MDTs' recommendations occurred in 66.9% (117/175) of cases. The overall survival (OS) was significantly better in concordant group and non-concordance was found to be an independent prognostic factor [hazard ratio (HR)=2.784 (95% CI 1.264-6.315)]. Logistic regression analyses determined that tumor type [odds ratio (OR)= 2.195 for left colon cancer and OR=2.502 for rectum cancer], and TNM stage (OR=0.545 for stage II, OR=0.187 for stage III, OR=0.127 for stage IV) were independently related with concordance, which were used to develop a concordance-predictive-nomogram.
conclusionsTreatment recommendations for patients with colorectal cancer determined by WFO and MDTs were mostly concordant. However, the survival was better among concordant patients and non-concordance was found to be an independent prognostic factor. This study presents a nomogram that can be conveniently used for predicting individualized concordance. However, our findings should be prospectively validated in multi-center trials.
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.