{"title":"通过多种人工智能模型理解未来癌症治疗方法的能力。","authors":"Hong Xu, Chengyuan Yang, Xiao-Yang Hu, Weikuan Gu","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02706-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Capacity of Understanding the Future Approaches in Cancer Treatment by Multiple Models of Artificial Intelligence.\",\"authors\":\"Hong Xu, Chengyuan Yang, Xiao-Yang Hu, Weikuan Gu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-025-02706-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02706-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02706-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
人工智能(AI)已成为疾病治疗教育的热门工具,不仅对患者,而且对医生和科学家也是如此。我们的目的是探索不同的AI模型在未来疾病治疗中的教育价值,为它们提供现实世界中最严重类型的乳腺癌和软骨肉瘤的癌症治疗障碍。我们首先要求七个大型人工智能模型预测未来的治疗方法,这些方法将为三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)和去分化软骨肉瘤(DDCS)带来更好的结果。然后,我们要求每个模型选择最好的一个并提供支持证据。接下来,要求模型提供一个计划或临床试验来测试治疗方法。我们的试验从7种模型中分别获得了10种TNBC和DDCS的治疗方法。总共有18种不同的独特方法被建议用于TNBC和34种DDCS。模型主要选择改良和/或扩大使用抗体-药物偶联物作为TNBC的最佳方法。免疫检查点抑制剂联合使用和异柠檬酸脱氢酶(IDH)抑制剂是DDCS模型的首选。大多数人工智能模型选择了专门的CAR-T细胞疗法和基于CRISPR的聚集性短回文重复序列(clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,简称CRISPR)的基因编辑作为高风险高回报的方法。我们的研究表明,大多数人工智能模型都能够跟上最新的癌症研究。然而,对于患者和医生来说,多种人工智能模型的咨询可能会更好地了解各种癌症治疗方法的利弊。
Capacity of Understanding the Future Approaches in Cancer Treatment by Multiple Models of Artificial Intelligence.
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.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.