ArticleCancer medicine2025
Multidisciplinary clinician perceptions on utility of a machine learning tool (ALERT) to predict 6-month mortality and improve end-of-life outcomes for advanced cancer patients.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of artificial intelligence in palliative care: a bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Ethics of artificial intelligence prognostication in palliative care: perspectives from a national survey of palliative care physicians.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary clinician perceptions on utility of a machine learning tool (ALERT) to predict 6-month mortality and improve end-of-life outcomes for advanced cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThere are significant disparities in outcomes at the end-of-life (EOL) for minoritized patients with advanced cancer, with most dying without a documented serious illness conversation (SIC). This study aims to assess clinician perceptions of the utility and challenges of implementing a machine learning model (ALERT) to predict 6-month mortality among patients with advanced solid cancers to prompt timely SIC.
methodsOne-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncology physicians, advanced practice providers, registered nurses, and social workers until knowledge saturation was reached (N = 19). Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcribed interviews, which were reviewed and coded by a team of interdisciplinary investigators.
resultsClinician-perceived benefits were (1) guiding prognostication and the objectivity of the prediction easing clinician distress with EOL treatment planning; (2) standardizing prognosis discussions across specialties, limiting aggressive EOL procedures; (3) respecting patient values by providing them time to get affairs in order and plan for cultural EOL rituals; and (4) facilitating earlier SIC and palliative care referrals. Challenges identified were (1) integration of predictions with clinical expertise; (2) balancing the reliability and accuracy of the model with a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape; and (3) concern about patient distress due to poor communication.
conclusionsClinicians expressed widespread acceptability of ALERT and identified clear benefits, particularly in triggering earlier SIC and standardizing prognosis discussions across care teams to avoid aggressive hospital interventions at EOL. Challenges identified, including concerns regarding communication of the prediction and integration with clinical expertise and new research, will guide refinement of the ALERT model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.