ArticleBMC cancer2026
Human factors validation study of an artificial neural network‑based preoperative decision‑support tool for noninvasive lymph node staging (NILS) in women with primary breast cancer (ISRCTN99301435).
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe integration of clinical decision support tools in medical practice is challenging and must be carefully undertaken, especially in cancer management. Noninvasive Lymph Node Status (NILS) is a web-based tool designed to estimate the probability of benign axillary lymph nodes in female patients with breast cancer scheduled for primary surgery. The aim was to identify barriers to NILS adoption in a clinical setting and assess whether intended users can operate the tool without significant errors or difficulties. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of result interpretation for decisions to abstain from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNLB) and measure overall user satisfaction with the tool.
methodsThis mixed-methods multicenter on-site qualitative human factor validation study was conducted in a simulated clinical environment, replicating both real-world physical and digital conditions. Based on the identified target user population for the NILS model, twenty physicians comprised the cohort. The study used simulated clinical cases, the System Usability Scale (SUS), and the After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ) to evaluate usability and satisfaction. An oral interview was conducted after the evaluations. The study followed a structured protocol, with distinct roles assigned to the test participants, leader, and observer.
resultsTwenty physicians from four hospitals, with a median of 9.5 years of specialist practice, participated. Most participants were surgeons (75%, N = 15), while the remaining 25% (N = 5) were oncologists. Usability scores were high, with a mean SUS score of 89.5 ("excellent") and a mean ASQ score of 6.3 (Likert scale 1-7). Several interface challenges were identified, including difficulty in locating the reset and information buttons, the ability to enter values outside valid ranges (age and tumor size), and the risk of unintentionally modifying the entered values while scrolling.
conclusionsThis study identified the key usability factors, barriers, and facilitators affecting the NILS model implementation. Physicians found the NILS interface easy to use and valued the presented risk estimates of benign axillary lymph node status in their decisions to perform or abstain from SLNB. Study-informed interface redesigns have been implemented. Iterative usability work in clinical settings is crucial for successful implementation.
trial registrationISRCTN99301435.
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.