ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2021
Adequacy and Effectiveness of Watson For Oncology in the Treatment of Thyroid Carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to support surgical oncology multidisciplinary team decision-making: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the Role of Extracellular Vesicles in Pancreatic and Hepatobiliary Cancers: Advances Through Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Role of AI in empowering and redefining the oncology care landscape: perspective from a developing nation.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence in healthcare research: Trends and future directions.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
- Novel research and future prospects of artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis and treatment.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2023Review
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Assessing the decision quality of artificial intelligence and oncologists of different experience in different regions in breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems for oncology.International journal of medical sciences · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: IBM's Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an artificial intelligence tool that trains by acquiring data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and learns from test cases and experts. This study aimed to analyze the adequacy and effectiveness of WFO in determining the treatment method for patients with thyroid carcinoma. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 50 patients with thyroid cancer who underwent surgery in 2018 and entered their clinical data into WFO. The WFO treatment recommendations were compared with the surgical procedures and recommended treatments performed according to the Korean Thyroid Endocrine Surgery Association guidelines. Results: The overall concordance rate between WFO-recommended treatments and actual surgical treatments was 48%, and for patients with stage I, II, and III disease, these rates were 52.4, 50, and 16.7%, respectively. A lower concordance rate was observed with respect to treatment for advanced thyroid cancer. Conclusion: WFO is a useful clinical aid but must be used with caution. A surgeon's decision takes precedence over WFO recommendations in the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer.
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.