ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
How to bring generative AI to oncology practice.
Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is entering oncology. Large language models are the near-term workhorse because oncology runs on narrative text and structured tables. We review current adoption and outline a practical path from stand-alone chat models to retrieval-augmented systems and, ultimately, agentic assistants that plan tasks, call domain tools, and integrate multimodal data within the electronic health record. Concrete uses include molecular tumor board synthesis with transparent evidence, grading along guidelines, synoptic radiology and pathology drafting, and computable trial matching. We also map the constraints: fragmented hospital information technology, privacy and provenance requirements, domain shift across sites, and persistent hallucinations. We envision that evaluation must move beyond leaderboards toward multicenter, prospective designs with endpoints that reflect clinical utility, such as faithfulness to cited sources, extraction accuracy, time to task completion, plan correctness, recovery after tool failure, and silent clinical studies before exposure. Finally, we sketch an adoption trajectory. Institutions will replace
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.