ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
Artificial Intelligence in Decision-Making for Colorectal Cancer Treatment Strategy: An Observational Study of Implementing Watson for Oncology in a 250-Case Cohort.
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 18 papers, 4 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the role of artificial intelligence in chemotherapy development, cancer diagnosis, and treatment: present achievements and future outlook.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate During Colonoscopy: Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in colorectal surgery: an AI-powered systematic review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Decision-Making: A Retrospective Single-Center Comparison of Guideline-Integrated General-Purpose vs. Domain-Specialized Models.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team recommendations in the management of colorectal cancer liver metastases.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Predicting liver metastasis in colorectal cancer patients using routine biochemical tests enhanced by machine learning.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary decision-making: concordance, predictive support and clinical translation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Exploring doctors' perspectives on precision medicine and AI in colorectal cancer: opportunities and challenges for the doctor-patient relationship.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Narrative Review.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Review
- A bibliometric and visual analysis of publications on artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer (2002-2022).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
- Role of artificial intelligence in risk prediction, prognostication, and therapy response assessment in colorectal cancer: current state and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Clinical trial design in the era of precision medicine.Genome medicine · 2022Review
- Development of artificial intelligence technology in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Review
- Risks and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence as an Adjunct in Colorectal Multidisciplinary Decision Making.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonalized and novel evidence-based clinical treatment strategy consulting for colorectal cancer has been available through various artificial intelligence (AI) supporting systems such as Watson for Oncology (WFO) from IBM. However, the potential effects of this supporting tool in cancer care have not been thoroughly explored in real-world studies. This research aims to investigate the concordance between treatment recommendations for colorectal cancer patients made by WFO and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) at a major comprehensive gastrointestinal cancer center.
methodsIn this prospective study, both WFO and the blinded MDT's treatment recommendations were provided concurrently for enrolled colorectal cancers of stages II to IV between March 2017 and January 2018 at Shanghai Minimally Invasive Surgery Center. Concordance was achieved if the cancer team's decisions were listed in the "recommended" or "for consideration" classification in WFO. A review was carried out after 100 cases for all non-concordant patients to explain the inconsistency, and corresponding feedback was given to WFO's database. The concordance of the subsequent cases was analyzed to evaluate both the performance and learning ability of WFO.
resultsOverall, 250 patients met the inclusion criteria and were recruited in the study. Eighty-one were diagnosed with colon cancer and 189 with rectal cancer. The concordances for colon cancer, rectal cancer, or overall were all 91%. The overall rates were 83, 94, and 88% in subgroups of stages II, III, and IV. When categorized by treatment strategy, concordances were 97, 93, 89, 87, and 100% for neoadjuvant, surgery, adjuvant, first line, and second line treatment groups, respectively. After analyzing the main factors causing discordance, relative updates were made in the database accordingly, which led to the concordance curve rising in most groups compared with the initial rates.
conclusionClinical recommendations made by WFO and the cancer team were highly matched for colorectal cancer. Patient age, cancer stage, and the consideration of previous therapy details had a significant influence on concordance. Addressing these perspectives will facilitate the use of the cancer decision-support systems to help oncologists achieve the promise of precision medicine.
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.