ArticleTrials2023
Concordance of a decision algorithm and multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with liver cancer-a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05681949 (Evaluation of the Trustworthiness of the Application of Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support Systems for the Creation of Tumor Conference Protocols), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Evaluation of the Trustworthiness of the Application of Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support Systems for the Creation of Tumor Conference Protocols
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Oncology: A Review of Ethical, Legal, and Informed Consent Challenges.Current oncology reports · 2025Pooled it
- Concordance with SPIRIT-AI guidelines in reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols investigating artificial intelligence in oncology: a systematic review.The oncologist · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a Systematic Review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and Radiomics in Cholangiocarcinoma: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence on Tumor Boards: Perspectives from Surgeons, Medical Oncologists and Radiation Oncologists.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs), also known as tumor conferences, are a cornerstone of cancer treatments. However, barriers such as incomplete patient information or logistical challenges can postpone tumor board decisions and delay patient treatment, potentially affecting clinical outcomes. Therapeutic Assistance and Decision algorithms for hepatobiliary tumor Boards (ADBoard) aims to reduce this delay by providing automated data extraction and high-quality, evidence-based treatment recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: With the help of natural language processing, relevant patient information will be automatically extracted from electronic medical records and used to complete a classic tumor conference protocol. A machine learning model is trained on retrospective MDM data and clinical guidelines to recommend treatment options for patients in our inclusion criteria. Study participants will be randomized to either MDM with ADBoard (Arm A: MDM-AB) or conventional MDM (Arm B: MDM-C). The concordance of recommendations of both groups will be compared using interrater reliability. We hypothesize that the therapy recommendations of ADBoard would be in high agreement with those of the MDM-C, with a Cohen's kappa value of ≥ 0.75. Furthermore, our secondary hypotheses state that the completeness of patient information presented in MDM is higher when using ADBoard than without, and the explainability of tumor board protocols in MDM-AB is higher compared to MDM-C as measured by the System Causability Scale. DISCUSSION: The implementation of ADBoard aims to improve the quality and completeness of the data required for MDM decision-making and to propose therapeutic recommendations that consider current medical evidence and guidelines in a transparent and reproducible manner. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (trial identifying number: NCT05681949; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05681949 ) on 12 January 2023.
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.