Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807706›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026

Artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary decision-making: concordance, predictive support and clinical translation.

Aristotelis Nikitaras, Sandra Maria Tsoti, Manousos-Georgios Pramateftakis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in 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.

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.

Aristotelis NikitarasAthens Euroclinic, Athens, Greece.
Sandra Maria TsotiSaint Savvas General Anticancer-Oncology Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Manousos-Georgios PramateftakisAristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are central to colorectal cancer management, where treatment decisions increasingly depend on the integration of tumor stage, molecular characteristics, patient fitness, and multimodal treatment strategies. However, MDT workflows are time-consuming, subject to inter-team variability, and influenced by differences in expertise, local practices, and resource availability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential support tool for data integration, standardization, and risk stratification. This review examines AI in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary decision-making, focusing on AI-MDT concordance, predictive models with potential relevance to MDT discussions, and clinical translation. Reported concordance between large language models and MDT decisions varies substantially and appears to be influenced by disease context, age, performance status, case complexity, input quality, and the inclusion of clinically important variables. Predictive models may provide additional prognostic information relevant to treatment planning. Prospective evidence of AI integrated into colorectal cancer MDT workflows remains very limited. Nevertheless, the literature remains limited by predominantly retrospective designs, small or selected cohorts, heterogeneous endpoints, and unresolved issues related to transparency, reproducibility, regulation, and accountability. Current evidence is insufficient to establish improvements in MDT decision quality or patient outcomes, and AI should therefore be regarded as a supervised support tool rather than a replacement for expert multidisciplinary judgment.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision supportcolorectal cancermultidisciplinary teamprecision oncologytreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID42807706
PMCPMC13617373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.