ArticleBMJ oncology2026
Bayesian networks as prognostic models in oncology: a systematic review and recommendations for clinical practice.
Article in BMJ 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In the last decades, artificial intelligence has made tremendous steps in supporting decision-making in healthcare. Bayesian networks (BNs) have emerged as powerful tools for probabilistic modelling and offer important advantages compared with regression-based models. This systematic review identifies the available literature on BNs for prognostication in oncology, evaluates their performance and discusses how BNs can overcome limitations of traditional prediction models. Design setting participants: The systematic review was performed according to the Cochrane guidance and reported according to the guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Studies identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE were included. Main outcome measures: Eligible studies investigated BNs as Results: A total of 52 studies were included, with a median construction cohort size of 438 patients. More than half of studies harboured unclear or high concerns about bias. Most studies used score-based structure learning approaches to construct the BNs. External validation was applied in a minority of studies and showed excellent performance metrics when hybrid techniques (integration of machine-learning and expert knowledge) were applied. Studies comparing BN validation with Cox regression validation showed better performance for BNs in most studies. Conclusions: When constructed with hybrid techniques, BNs offer great potential to support decision-making in clinical oncology. Advantages include their ability to estimate treatment effects with non-randomised data, to model causal relationships, to apply counterfactual reasoning and to work with missing variables. To be implemented into clinical practice, hybrid construction techniques, high-quality external validation, prospective evaluation with a health technology assessment and adequate postmarketing surveillance and maintenance are essential. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251140130.
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.