ArticleProstate international2023
Artificial intelligence in urologic oncology: the actual clinical practice results of IBM Watson for Oncology in South Korea.
Article in Prostate international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 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
- Artificial intelligence in genitourinary pathology.Histopathology · 2026Review
- Transforming therapeutics through biomaterials: A comprehensive insight into biomaterials' role in effective drug delivery and healthcare advancement.Biomaterials translational · 2026Review
- Advancing the adoption of oncology decision support tools in Europe: insights from CAN.HEAL.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven digital pathology in urological cancers: current trends and future directions.Prostate international · 2025Review
- Assessment of artificial intelligence performance in answering questions on onabotulinum toxin and sacral neuromodulation.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Article
- Sharing reliable information worldwide: healthcare strategies based on artificial intelligence need external validation. Position paper.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Leveraging explainable AI and large-scale datasets for comprehensive classification of renal histologic types.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bridging ancient wisdom and modern technology: an AI and multi-omics framework for three causes tailored treatment in personalized medicine.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Review
- The impact of obesity and sexual behavior on prostate cancer risk is mediated by testosterone levels: a mendelian randomization study and mediation analysis.Prostate international · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: a narrative review.Updates in surgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our life, including the medical field. Repeated machine learning using big data made various fields more predictable and accurate. In medicine, IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO), trained by Memorial Slone Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), was first introduced and applied in 14 countries worldwide.Our study was designed to assess the feasibility of WFO in actual clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the concordance rate between WFO and multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) in Urologic cancer patients. Materials and methods: We reviewed retrospectively collected data for consecutive patients who underwent WFO and MTB simultaneously in the diagnosis of urologic malignancy before determining further treatment between August 2017 and September 2020. We compared the recommendation of the AI system, WFO (IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA), with the opinion of MTB for further managing all patients diagnosed with urologic malignancies such as prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. Results: A total of 55 patients were enrolled in our study. The number of patients with prostate cancer was 48. The number of bladder and kidney cancer patients was 5 and 2, respectively. The overall concordance rate between WFO and MTB was 92.7%. Three patients could not suggest proper treatment options using WFO, and the recommended choice of WFO was not feasible in the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Conclusions: The decision of WFO showed a high concordance rate with a multidisciplinary tumor board for urologic oncology. However, some recommendations of WFO were not feasible in actual practice, and WFO still has some points to improve and modify. Interestingly, applying WFO is likely to facilitate a multidisciplinary team approach.
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.