ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Impact of an AI prognostic tool on clinician performance in colorectal liver metastases.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Multi-Reader Multi-Case Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Performance Improvement From Computer-aided Tool for the Prognostic Prediction of Colorectal Liver Metastases
Clinical Utility Evaluation of a Surgical Sequencing Decision-Support Software in Simulated Cases of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Multicenter Prospective Study (COLORS-Validate Study)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While thousands of AI prediction models are published annually, few are adopted into routine practice, partly because improved statistical performance does not necessarily translate into meaningful impact on clinical decision-making. We conducted a prospective randomized multi-reader multi-case study to evaluate how a machine learning-based prognostic tool influences clinician performance in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In a prospective, randomized multi-reader multi-case trial (NCT07027605; Registration Date: January 1, 2025), 12 surgical oncologists assessed 166 retrospective CRLM cases with and without tool assistance in a crossed design with a 5-week washout. The primary endpoint was the difference in AUC for predicting 3-year mortality. Between January and July 2025, 12 readers completed 3984 assessments. Model assistance significantly improved the AUC for 3-year mortality prediction (mean difference 0.091; 95% CI 0.001-0.181; P = 0.048) and consistently improved accuracy across secondary prognostic endpoints. It also reduced decision time (2.53 vs. 3.04 minutes) and increased reader confidence. Benefits were greatest for junior to mid-level surgical oncologists. This exploratory study demonstrates that a machine learning prognostic tool can significantly improve accuracy, efficiency, and confidence in CRLM evaluation.
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.