ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
Artificial intelligence in oncology: empowering clinicians for responsible integration.
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. 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.
- Multimodal artificial intelligence and machine learning in oncology: from data integration to precision cancer care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping oncology, from diagnosis to treatment planning and clinical research. This perspective defines the oncologist in the era of AI as a clinician able to critically interpret, supervise, and communicate AI outputs, while understanding the principles, limitations, and ethical implications of these tools. We ground this discussion in a survey of 475 UK-based participants, including cancer patients and survivors, members of the public and healthcare staff. Acceptance of AI was substantial but conditional: it increased sharply with self-reported understanding and depended on assurances of clinician involvement, transparency and data security. These findings motivate the three concerns around which we structure the perspective: 'AI will replace the clinician', 'AI may be biased and unfair', and 'AI does not safeguard data'. Using the example of an AI system for cancer treatment recommendation, we illustrate how these concerns can be addressed through practical, technically grounded approaches, including concept-based modelling, uncertainty quantification, and federated learning. Finally, we argue that AI skills development must become an integral part of oncology education, enabling oncologists not only to use AI safely, but also to explain, contextualise, and critically shape its integration into patient-centred cancer care.
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.