ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
User perceptions of machine learning models as decision support for colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team conferences (AID-SIM-2): a qualitative simulation study.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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
backgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) conferences are considered a cornerstone of decision-making in cancer diagnostics and care. However, the current literature has not demonstrated improved patient outcomes based on the decisions of the MDT conferences.
aimWe aimed to evaluate how four different decision-support modalities impacted the decision-making process and the internal discussions in the MDTs in a multicenter simulation study, with a focus on user perceptions.
methodsFour colorectal cancer centers with MDTs participated. We performed four simulations in each center. Each simulation used a different decision-support tool: (1) Current standard, (2) Current standard plus a prediction model, (3) A structured data presentation tool, and (4) A structured data presentation tool plus the prediction model. Clinician- and model-estimated risks were compared, the treatment suggestions from each site were compared, questionnaires about user perceptions were conducted after Simulations 2, 3, and 4 using a Google Form link, and a semi-structured interview was conducted at each site after the last simulation.
resultsSimilar distributions of risk groups between clinicians and models were found; however, distinct discrepancies in predictions arose, particularly with higher-risk patients, highlighting the need for standardization for more complex clinical cases. The primary perceived benefit of decision support was increased standardization of care, independent of the individual physicians' personal views. However, participants emphasized the necessity of clinician autonomy to overrule tool suggestions when identifying clinical nuances not captured by the model.
conclusionsThe colorectal cancer MDTs expressed a positive view regarding the use of prediction models and other forms of decision-support in their workflow. While clinicians and prediction models had similar risk score distributions, they diverged in the assessment of specific individual patients.
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.