Key result
PrecisCa.AI decision-support platform achieves 100% processing success for provider-submitted oncology cases.
Why the study?
There are widespread disparities in access to rapid, expert-level second opinions worldwide.
Does an anonymized, human-in-the-loop AI decision-support platform achieve feasible global use for oncology second opinions?
Observational (n=256)
Yes
Does an anonymized, human-in-the-loop AI decision-support platform achieve feasible global use for oncology second opinions?
An AI decision-support platform for oncology second opinions demonstrated 100% processing success and rapid turnaround times globally.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports feasibility of AI oncology second opinions; leaves open validation of clinical impact and adoption.
e13672 Background: There are widespread disparities in access to rapid, expert-level second opinions worldwide. We assessed the feasibility and early adoption of an anonymized, human-in-the-loop AI decision-support platform (PrecisCa.AI) that analyzes cases in 2-3 minutes and offers optional expert faculty over-read on request. Methods: After a real-time demonstration during international breast cancer tumor boards (December 2025), we collected provider-submitted, de-identified cases. Feasibility measures included successful case processing and measured time to response. Secondary measures included clinician uptake, location of submitted cases, tumor of origin, referral sources, and in-app feedback. AI consults are undergoing expert review and scoring from 1-5 (5 being the highest) on 6 attributes: clarity, completeness, menu of options, recency, reasoning, and relevance. An in-app survey asked if the response was helpful. Results: Across the observation window, from 12/10/2025-1/23/2026, 256 cases were submitted by 89 unique active providers (mean 2.9 cases/provider) after 125 new sign-ups (100% registration completion). Processing success was 100% (0/256 failed), with mean turnaround time of 149 seconds. Submissions originated from North and South America, Europe, Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Breast cancer cases (58%) were most common followed by thoracic 13%, hematologic 9%, GI 8%, GU 5%, gynecologic 3%, head & neck 2%, and skin 1%. Referrals were most commonly from a colleague (45%) followed by referrals from a conference 32%, email 7%, social media 6%, Google 3%, and other 7%. In-app survey response rate was 16.8% (43/256) with mean score 3.7/5. 33% of survey responses contained free-text comments. Multiple adjudicator large language models were available and used (most commonly recent Gemini and ChatGPT). Conclusions: An anonymized, clinician-submitted, human-in-the-loop AI platform achieved feasible global use shortly after a public demonstration, with 100% processing success and short mean turnaround time across diverse tumor types and referral channels. Optional expert faculty over-read was available, and AI consults will now be expert-rated (1-5) on clarity, completeness, menu of options, recency, reasoning, and relevance. Detailed analyses of expert ratings and comparative model performance will be presented.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alder et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Oncology (n=256). PrecisCa.AI (anonymized, human-in-the-loop AI decision-support platform) was evaluated on Successful case processing. The PrecisCa.AI decision-support platform achieved 100% processing success with a mean turnaround time of 149 seconds for 256 provider-submitted oncology cases.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: