Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38923826›Full record

ReviewCancer medicine2024

Challenges and perspectives in use of artificial intelligence to support treatment recommendations in clinical oncology.

Gregor Duwe, Dominique Mercier, Crispin Wiesmann, Verena Kauth, Kerstin Moench, Markus Junker, Christopher C M Neumann, Axel Haferkamp, Andreas Dengel, Thomas Höfner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer medicine, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. AI and human expertise in cancer care - striving for synergy.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Identifying Measurement Dimensions of Users' Benefit-Risk Perceptions of AI in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Gregor DuweDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7008-1238
Dominique MercierResearch Unit Smart Data and Knowledge Services, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Crispin WiesmannDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Verena KauthDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Kerstin MoenchDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Markus JunkerResearch Unit Smart Data and Knowledge Services, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Christopher C M NeumannDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Axel HaferkampDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Andreas DengelResearch Unit Smart Data and Knowledge Services, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Thomas HöfnerDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 16SV9053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to be the next revolutionary step in modern society. Yet, its role in all fields of industry and science need to be determined. One very promising field is represented by AI-based decision-making tools in clinical oncology leading to more comprehensive, personalized therapy approaches. In this review, the authors provide an overview on all relevant technical applications of AI in oncology, which are required to understand the future challenges and realistic perspectives for decision-making tools. In recent years, various applications of AI in medicine have been developed focusing on the analysis of radiological and pathological images. AI applications encompass large amounts of complex data supporting clinical decision-making and reducing errors by objectively quantifying all aspects of the data collected. In clinical oncology, almost all patients receive a treatment recommendation in a multidisciplinary cancer conference at the beginning and during their treatment periods. These highly complex decisions are based on a large amount of information (of the patients and of the various treatment options), which need to be analyzed and correctly classified in a short time. In this review, the authors describe the technical and medical requirements of AI to address these scientific challenges in a multidisciplinary manner. Major challenges in the use of AI in oncology and decision-making tools are data security, data representation, and explainability of AI-based outcome predictions, in particular for decision-making processes in multidisciplinary cancer conferences. Finally, limitations and potential solutions are described and compared for current and future research attempts.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingMedical OncologyNeoplasmsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansPrecision Medicineartificial intelligenceclinical oncologygenitourinary cancermultidisciplinary cancer conferencestreatment recommendation

Identifiers

PMID38923826
PMCPMC11196383

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.