Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34168975›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Artificial Intelligence Can Cut Costs While Maintaining Accuracy in Colorectal Cancer Genotyping.

Alec J Kacew, Garth W Strohbehn, Loren Saulsberry, Neda Laiteerapong, Nicole A Cipriani, Jakob N Kather, Alexander T Pearson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Using artificial intelligence to prioritize pathology samples: report of a test drive.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Machine Learning Operations in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Direct prediction of genetic aberrations from pathology images in gastric cancer with swarm learning.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Alec J KacewPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Garth W StrohbehnDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Loren SaulsberryDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Neda LaiteerapongDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Nicole A CiprianiDepartment of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Jakob N KatherDepartment of Medicine, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Alexander T PearsonDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI MARSHALL H CHIN · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
A reasoned approach to combination therapy development in head and neck cancerK08DE026500 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PEARSON, ALEXANDER THOMAS · 2016 to 2020
$800k
NIDCR NIH HHS K08 DE026500NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rising cancer care costs impose financial burdens on health systems. Applying artificial intelligence to diagnostic algorithms may reduce testing costs and avoid wasteful therapy-related expenditures. To evaluate the financial and clinical impact of incorporating artificial intelligence-based determination of mismatch repair/microsatellite instability status into the first-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma setting, we developed a deterministic model to compare eight testing strategies: A) next-generation sequencing alone, B) high-sensitivity polymerase chain reaction or immunohistochemistry panel alone, C) high-specificity panel alone, D) high-specificity artificial intelligence alone, E) high-sensitivity artificial intelligence followed by next generation sequencing, F) high-specificity artificial intelligence followed by next-generation sequencing, G) high-sensitivity artificial intelligence and high-sensitivity panel, and H) high-sensitivity artificial intelligence and high-specificity panel. We used a hypothetical, nationally representative, population-based sample of individuals receiving first-line treatment for

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecolorectal (colon) cancercost savingsdeep learningdigital biomarkerdigital pathologyfinancial implicationmicrosatellite instability (MSI)

Identifiers

PMID34168975
PMCPMC8217761

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.