Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42452866›Full record

ReviewZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2026

[Current Status of Multidisciplinary Team Consultation for Lung Cancer and Prospects under the Empowerment of Medical Large Models].

Yingxin Fu, Li Shan, Tingting Yu

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Review in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 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

3 authors.

Yingxin FuDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830011, China.
Li ShanDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830011, China.
Tingting YuDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830011, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer ranks among malignant neoplasms with the highest incidence and mortality, and its diagnosis and treatment are complicated, requiring multidisciplinary participation. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) consultation is the core model for modern lung cancer management. By pooling the expertise of specialists from diverse disciplines, MDT develops optimal individualized treatment regimens for patients and markedly improves diagnostic and therapeutic quality as well as patient prognosis. This article systematically summarizes the organizational framework, standardized procedures and clinical value of lung cancer MDT, alongside key problems in its popularization including obstacles in data integration, inconsistent decision-making efficiency and imbalanced resource allocation. It elaborates on the innovative effect of new technologies represented by artificial intelligence large language models on conventional MDT modes, and analyzes their application value in high-efficiency integration of multimodal medical data, real-time evidence-based decision-making support, optimization of consultation procedures and resources, as well as precise individualized treatment, so as to furnish theoretical basis and development ideas for establishing a new-generation intelligent, efficient and precise lung cancer MDT platform.
.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsPatient Care TeamReferral and ConsultationHumansClinical decision supportDiagnosis and treatment modeLarge language modelLung neoplasmsMultidisciplinary team

Identifiers

PMID42452866
PMCPMC13494960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.