MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404912666 · doi:10.1200/cci.24.00119

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Symptom Monitoring in Adult Cancer Survivorship: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4404912666 on OpenAlexaff
Sanam Tabataba Vakili, Darren Haywood, Deborah Walker, Aalaa Abdou, Ragisha Gopalakrishnan, Sarina Sadeghi, Helena Karolyne Arruda Guedes, Chia Jie Tan, Carla Thamm, Rhys Bernard, Henry C. Y. Wong, Elaine P. Kuhn, Jennifer Kwan, Shing Fung Lee, Nicolas H. Hart, Catherine F Paterson, Deepti Chopra, Amanda Drury, Elwyn Zhang, Shayan Raeisi Dehkordi, Fredrick D. Ashbury, Grigorios Kotronoulas, Edward Chow, Michael Jefford, Raymond J. Chan, Rouhi Fazelzad, Srinivas Raman, Muna Alkhaifi

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveNauseaMEDLINEHealth careBreast cancerCancerArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care may afford new avenues for personalized and patient-centered care. This systematic review explored the role of AI in symptom monitoring for adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed from inception to November 2023 in seven bibliographic databases and three clinical trial registries. This PROSPERO registered review (ID: CRD42023476027) assessed reports of empirical research studies of AI use in symptom monitoring (physical and psychological symptoms) across all cancer types in adults. RESULTS: A total of 18,530 reports were identified, of which 41 met review criteria and were analyzed. Included studies were predominantly published between 2021 and 2023, originated in the United States (39.0%) and Japan (14.6%), and primarily used cohort designs (80.5%), followed by cross-sectional designs (12.2%). The mean sample size was 617.14 (standard deviation = 1,401.37), with most studies primarily including multiple tumor types (31.7%) or breast cancer survivors (26.8%). Machine learning algorithms (43.9%) was the most used AI method, followed by natural language processing (29.3%), AI-driven chatbots (17.1%), and decision support tools (9.8%). The most common inputs to the AI algorithms were textual data, patient-reported symptoms, and physiologic measurements. The most examined symptom was pain (34.2% of studies), followed by fatigue and nausea (17.1% of studies each). Overall, the review showed increasing AI technology use in the prediction and monitoring of cancer symptoms. CONCLUSION: AI is being used to enhance symptom monitoring in various cancer settings. When considering integration into clinical practice, standardization of data capture, the use of analytics, investing in infrastructure, and the end-user experience should be considered for successful implementation and monitoring the improvement of patient outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Clinical Cancer InformaticsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207