Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33628729›Full record

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.

Batuer Aikemu, Pei Xue, Hiju Hong, Hongtao Jia, Chenxing Wang, Shuchun Li, Ling Huang, Xiaoyi Ding, Huan Zhang, Gang Cai and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Batuer AikemuDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Pei XueDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hiju HongDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hongtao JiaDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Chenxing WangDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Shuchun LiDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ling HuangDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyi DingDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Huan ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Gang CaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Aiguo LuDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Li XieClinical Research Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hao LiDepartment of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Minhua ZhengDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jing SunDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNRuijin Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencecolorectal cancerconcordance analysismultidisciplinary teamWatson for Oncology

Identifiers

PMID33628729
PMCPMC7899045
OpenAlexW3127371221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.