ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Concordance between multidisciplinary tumor board decisions and AI-based recommendations in endometrial cancer: impact of discordance direction on clinical outcomes.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical relevance of concordance between multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) decisions and artificial intelligence (AI)-based treatment recommendations remains unclear. This study evaluated not only concordance but also the clinical impact of discordance direction on outcomes in endometrial cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 150 patients with endometrial cancer discussed at a single-center MDT. AI-based recommendations were generated using a large language model according to ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines, based on standardized clinicopathological inputs without molecular classification. Concordance between MDT and AI recommendations was assessed at the patient level. Discordant cases were classified as relative undertreatment or overtreatment. Agreement beyond chance was evaluated using Cohen's kappa. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was analyzed using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods.
resultsOverall concordance was observed in 76.7% of patients, with fair agreement beyond chance (Cohen's κ = 0.365, 95% CI 0.181-0.549). During follow-up, 68 events (45.3%) occurred. Concordance was not independently associated with RFS in multivariable analysis (adjusted HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.64-2.48, p = 0.50). In contrast, relative undertreatment was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.03-3.64, p = 0.040), whereas overtreatment was not. Event rates were higher in the undertreatment group compared to concordant patients (67.9% vs 40.0%), despite more favorable baseline characteristics.
conclusionsConcordance alone may be insufficient to determine the clinical relevance of AI-based recommendations. Discordance direction appears more informative, with treatment de-escalation associated with inferior outcomes. AI-based systems may help identify potential undertreatment and support more consistent implementation of guideline-based care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42402088What 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.