ArticleBMJ oncology2025
Concordance with CONSORT-AI guidelines in reporting of randomised controlled trials investigating artificial intelligence in oncology: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical challenges in the adaptation of AI predictive models in radiation oncology for gynaecological cancer: a systematic review by the radiation oncology-AI MITO group.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Why Radiomics Rarely Reaches the Clinic: Reproducibility, Validation, and Evidence Gap-A Critical Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative Molecular Insights and Computational Modeling of Multiple Myeloma and Osteosarcoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Challenges in functional validation and mechanistic interpretation of a novel LACC1 variant in familial juvenile arthritis.Human genomics · 2026Article
- Beyond Cancer Detection: An AI Framework for Multidimensional Risk Profiling on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in oncology to support clinical decision-making, reduce physician workload and automate workflow inefficiencies yields both great promise and caution. To generate high-quality evidence on the safety and efficacy of AI interventions, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard. However, the completeness and quality of reporting among AI trials in oncology remains unknown. Objective: This systematic review investigates the reporting concordance of RCTs for AI interventions in oncology using the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 and CONSORT-AI 2020 extension guideline and comprehensively summarises the state of AI RCTs in oncology. Methods and analysis: We queried OVID MEDLINE and Embase on 22 October 2024 using AI, cancer and RCT search terms. Studies were included if they reported on an AI intervention in an RCT including participants with cancer. Results: This study included 57 RCTs of AI interventions in oncology that were primarily focused on screening (54%) or diagnosis (19%) and intended for clinician use (88%). Among all 57 RCTs, median concordance with CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-AI 2020 was 82%. Compared with trials published before the release of CONSORT-AI (n=8), trials published after the release of CONSORT-AI (n=49) had lower median overall CONSORT (82% vs 92%) and CONSORT 2010 (81% vs 92%) concordance but similar CONSORT-AI median concordance (93% vs 93%). Guideline items related to study methodology necessary for reproducibility using the AI intervention, such as input data inclusion and exclusion, algorithm version, low quality data handling, assessment of performance error and data accessibility, were consistently under-reported. When stratifying included trials by their overall risk of bias, trials at serious risk of bias (57%) were less concordant to CONSORT guidelines compared with trials at moderate (71%) or low (84%) risk of bias. Conclusion: Although the majority of CONSORT and CONSORT-AI items were well-reported, critical gaps related to reporting of methodology, reproducibility and harms persist. Addressing these gaps through consideration of trial design to mitigate risks of bias coupled with standardised reporting is one step towards responsible adoption of AI to improve patient outcomes in oncology.
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.