Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33707577›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2021

A meta-analysis of Watson for Oncology in clinical application.

Zhou Jie, Zeng Zhiying, Li Li

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A neuromuscular clinician's primer on machine learning.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Can Artificial Intelligence Software be Utilised for Thyroid Multi-Disciplinary Team Outcomes?Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhou Jie *Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Early Prevention and Treatment for Regional High Frequency Tumor, Ministry of Education, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
Zeng Zhiying *Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, People's Republic of China.
Li LiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Early Prevention and Treatment for Regional High Frequency Tumor, Ministry of Education, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. lili@gxmu.edu.cn.
Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University · CNUniversity of South China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using the method of meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the consistency of treatment schemes between Watson for Oncology (WFO) and Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), and to provide references for the practical application of artificial intelligence clinical decision-support system in cancer treatment. We systematically searched articles about the clinical applications of Watson for Oncology in the databases and conducted meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 9 studies were identified, including 2463 patients. When the MDT is consistent with WFO at the 'Recommended' or the 'For consideration' level, the overall concordance rate is 81.52%. Among them, breast cancer was the highest and gastric cancer was the lowest. The concordance rate in stage I-III cancer is higher than that in stage IV, but the result of lung cancer is opposite (P < 0.05).Similar results were obtained when MDT was only consistent with WFO at the "recommended" level. Moreover, the consistency of estrogen and progesterone receptor negative breast cancer patients, colorectal cancer patients under 70 years old or ECOG 0, and small cell lung cancer patients is higher than that of estrogen and progesterone positive breast cancer patients, colorectal cancer patients over 70 years old or ECOG 1-2, and non-small cell lung cancer patients, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). Treatment recommendations made by WFO and MDT were highly concordant for cancer cases examined, but this system still needs further improvement. Owing to relatively small sample size of the included studies, more well-designed, and large sample size studies are still needed.

Indexed as

Medical OncologySoftwareHumansNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingPublications

Identifiers

PMID33707577
PMCPMC7952578
OpenAlexW3134687420

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.