Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40526332›Full record

SynthesisCurrent oncology reports2025

Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Oncology: A Review of Ethical, Legal, and Informed Consent Challenges.

Eliza-Maria Froicu, Ioana Creangă-Murariu, Vlad-Adrian Afrăsânie, Bogdan Gafton, Teodora Alexa-Stratulat, Lucian Miron, Diana Maria Pușcașu, Vladimir Poroch, Gema Bacoanu, Iulian Radu and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Redefining oropharyngeal cancer in the HPV era: integrating precision medicine and immunotherapeutic frontiers.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Eliza-Maria FroicuDepartment of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115, Iasi, Romania.
Ioana Creangă-MurariuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania. Ioana.creanga@d.umfiasi.ro.
Vlad-Adrian AfrăsânieDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.
Bogdan GaftonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.
Teodora Alexa-StratulatDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.
Lucian MironDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.
Diana Maria PușcașuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.
Vladimir Poroch2nd Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115, Iasi, Romania.
Gema Bacoanu2nd Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115, Iasi, Romania.
Iulian RaduFirst Surgical Oncology Unit, Department of Surgery, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.
Mihai-Vasile MarincaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483, Iasi, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewArtificial Intelligence (AI) integration in oncology is transforming therapeutic decision-making by providing clinical decision support. AI may improve treatment precision, but it raises ethical, legal, and informed consent issues. This review examines these paramount AI implementation issues in cancer care. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO (CRD420251046482) database. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL Library to identify studies published between January 2015 and May 2025. AI-supported oncology therapeutic decision-making studies with ethical, legal, or informed consent implications were eligible. RECENT

findingsFifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. AI applications were found to support treatment recommendations, personalize drug dosing, and improve adherence and patient management. Despite these benefits, the review highlighted key concerns, including algorithmic transparency, unclear accountability in AI-guided decisions, data privacy, and gaps in patient understanding of AI's role in their care. AI has the potential to enhance oncological care, but ethical and legal issues must be addressed for safe and equitable implementation. Emphasis should be placed on developing robust informed consent models, mitigating algorithmic bias, and establishing clear legal accountability. Future research must establish ethical frameworks and regulatory mechanisms to protect patient autonomy and responsibly integrate AI into oncology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision MakingInformed ConsentMedical OncologyNeoplasmsHumansArtificial intelligenceDecision makingEthicalInformed consentLegalOncology

Identifiers

PMID40526332
PMCPMC12423120

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.