Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34535775›Full record

ArticleNature reviews. Cancer2021

Artificial intelligence in cancer research, diagnosis and therapy.

Olivier Elemento, Christina Leslie, Johan Lundin, Georgia Tourassi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Olivier ElementoCaryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. ole2001@med.cornell.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8061-9617
Christina LeslieComputational and Systems Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. cleslie@cbio.mskcc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4571-5910
Johan LundinDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. johan.lundin@ki.se.
Georgia TourassiNational Center for Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA. tourassig@ornl.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

standfirstArtificial intelligence and machine learning techniques are breaking into biomedical research and health care, which importantly includes cancer research and oncology, where the potential applications are vast. These include detection and diagnosis of cancer, subtype classification, optimization of cancer treatment and identification of new therapeutic targets in drug discovery. While big data used to train machine learning models may already exist, leveraging this opportunity to realize the full promise of artificial intelligence in both the cancer research space and the clinical space will first require significant obstacles to be surmounted. In this Viewpoint article, we asked four experts for their opinions on how we can begin to implement artificial intelligence while ensuring standards are maintained so as transform cancer diagnosis and the prognosis and treatment of patients with cancer and to drive biological discovery.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceDrug DiscoveryHumansMachine LearningMedical Oncology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.