Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40739240›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Exploring doctors' perspectives on precision medicine and AI in colorectal cancer: opportunities and challenges for the doctor-patient relationship.

Mirko Ancillotti, Åsa Grauman, Jorien Veldwijk, Åsmund Flobak, Deborah Mascalzoni

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

5 authors.

Mirko AncillottiCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. mirko.ancillotti@uu.se.
Åsa GraumanCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jorien VeldwijkErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Åsmund FlobakNorwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Deborah MascalzoniCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrecision medicine and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly integrated into colorectal cancer (CRC) care, offering personalised treatment strategies and data-driven decision support. While these technologies promise improved outcomes, they also raise challenges concerning clinical decision-making, the doctor-patient relationship, and ethics. This study explores physicians' perspectives on integrating precision medicine and AI in CRC care.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with ten CRC physicians from six European countries. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsThree key themes emerged from the analysis. First, physicians described precision medicine as a logical extension of existing tailoring practices, offering new opportunities while introducing complexity. Many expressed concerns about the blurred boundary between experimental and standard treatments, noting potential implications for equity and ethical decision-making. Second, AI was viewed as a future partner in care, with the potential to enhance efficiency and assist in synthesising complex data. However, participants voiced concerns about trust, clinical responsibility, and the lack of regulatory clarity, particularly due to AI's "black box" nature. Finally, doctors reported challenges in communicating both precision medicine and AI-based recommendations to patients. They emphasised the importance of adapting communication strategies to individual patients and highlighted the need for structured approaches to ensure patient understanding and prevent miscommunication, especially when dealing with uncertain outcomes or emerging technologies.

conclusionsThe findings highlight both the opportunities and challenges of integrating precision medicine and AI in CRC care. Addressing concerns related to communication, ethics, and regulation requires clear guidance and improved support for clinicians. Precision medicine and AI enhance CRC care but demand robust communication, regulation, and ethical safeguards to ensure transparency, trust, and physician autonomy.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelColorectal NeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansPrecision MedicineAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchArtificial intelligenceClinical decision-makingColorectal cancerDoctor-patient relationshipMedical ethicsPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID40739240
PMCPMC12312572

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.