Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211017›Full record

ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2026

The evolving physician-AI relationship: a five-tier framework for integrating intelligent systems into clinical practice and medical education.

R Barak, I Wolf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R BarakOncology Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
I WolfOncology Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly entering oncology, with systems demonstrating physician-comparable performance in selected tasks such as imaging interpretation, digital pathology analysis, and clinical documentation. However, limitations including factual errors, algorithmic bias, and lack of accountability mean that oncologist oversight remains essential. The key question is therefore not whether AI will enter oncology, but how the interaction between oncologists and AI systems will evolve. We propose a five-tier framework describing progressively different modes of physician-AI interaction. Tier 1 represents traditional oncology practice without AI. Tier 2 involves oncologists using existing AI tools for defined clinical tasks. Tier 3 describes physicians adapting or developing AI-enabled solutions tailored to clinical needs. Tier 4 reflects AI-dominated workflows supervised by experienced oncologists. Tier 5 represents autonomous AI systems performing selected clinical tasks with minimal physician involvement. The framework illustrates how oncologists' roles may evolve from direct decision makers to users, innovators, supervisors, and designers of AI-supported care, and outlines the competencies required across these tiers. It provides a practical structure for understanding AI integration into oncology and guiding the training of future oncologists.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)clinical practicemedical educationphysician–AI interaction

Identifiers

PMID42211017
PMCPMC13213678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.