ArticleCancers2025
A Step Toward a Global Consensus on Gastric Cancer Resectability Integrating Artificial Intelligence-Based Consensus Modelling.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection remains central to the curative treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (GC), yet global variability persists in defining resectability, particularly in complex scenarios such as multivisceral invasion, positive peritoneal cytology (CY1), or oligometastatic disease. The Intercontinental Criteria of Resectability for Gastric Cancer (ICRGC) project was developed to address this gap by combining expert surgical input with artificial intelligence (AI)-based reasoning.
methodsA two-stage prospective survey was conducted during the 2024 European Gastric Cancer Association (EGCA) meeting. Fifty-eight surgical oncologists completed a 36-item questionnaire on resectability, strategy, and quality metrics. Subsequently, they reviewed AI-generated responses based on current clinical guidelines and completed a second round. Concordance between human and AI responses was classified as full, partial, or discordant, and changes in surgeon opinions were statistically analyzed.
resultsSubstantial agreement was observed in evidence-based domains. Seventy-nine percent of surgeons agreed with AI on distinguishing technical from oncological resectability. In cT4b cases, 61% supported restricting multivisceral resection to high-volume centers. Similar alignment was found in CY1 (54%) and N3 nodal disease (63%). Partial concordance appeared in areas requiring individualized judgment, such as peritonectomy or bulky-N disease. After AI exposure, surgeon responses shifted toward guideline-consistent decisions, including increased support for cytoreductive surgery only when CC0/1 was achievable and stricter classification of R2 resections as unresectable. Following AI exposure, 27.1% of surgeons changed at least one answer in alignment with AI recommendations, with statistically significant shifts observed in items related to surgical margin definition (
conclusionsThe ICRGC study demonstrates that AI-driven consensus modeling can replicate expert reasoning in complex surgical oncology and serve as a catalyst for harmonizing global practice. These findings suggest that AI-supported consensus modeling may complement expert surgical reasoning and promote greater consistency in decision-making, particularly in controversial or ambiguous cases.
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.