ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Capacity of Understanding the Future Approaches in Cancer Treatment by Multiple Models of Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a popular tool in education for disease treatment, not only for patients but also for physicians and scientists. We aimed to explore the educational values of different AI models in future disease treatment by providing them with real-world obstacles in cancer treatment for the most serious types of breast cancer and chondrosarcoma. We first asked seven large AI models to predict the future treatment approaches that would lead to a better outcome for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (DDCS). We then requested each model to select the best one and provide supporting evidence. Next, the models were requested to provide a plan or clinical trial to test the treatment approach. Our test obtained ten treatment approaches for TNBC and DDCS from each of the seven models. Together, a total of 18 different unique approaches were suggested for TNBC and 34 for DDCS. Modified and/or extended usage of antibody-drug conjugates are predominantly selected by models as the best approach for TNBC. Combined immune checkpoint inhibition usage and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors were favored by models for DDCS. Specialized CAR-T cell therapy and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based gene editing were selected by majority of AI models as high risk and high reward approaches. Our study indicated that most AI models are capable of keeping up with updated cancer research. However, for patients and physicians, consultation of multiple AI models may gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of a variety of approaches for cancer treatment.
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.