ArticleEBioMedicine2020
Personalized four-category staging for predicting prognosis in patients with small bowel Adenocarcinoma: an international development and validation study.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of LODDS in late-onset gastric adenocarcinoma: analysis of SEER, TCGA, and external multicenter cohorts.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of novel nomograms based on the log odds of positive lymph nodes to predict the prognosis of papillary thyroid cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Small bowel adenocarcinoma of the jejunum detected by double contrast enhanced ultrasound: a case report of a novel ultrasound modality.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLog odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) classification showed superiority over 8
methodsTotally 1789 SBA patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 1988-2010, 437 patients from SEER database between 2011-2013 and 166 patients from multicenters were categorized into development, validation and test cohort, respectively. The TLM staging was developed in the development cohort using Ensemble Algorithm for Clustering Cancer Data (EACCD) method. C-index was used to assess the performance of the TLM staging in predicting cancer-specific survival (CSS) and was compared with the traditional 8
findingsFour-category TLM staging designed for the development cohort showed higher discriminatory power than TNM staging in predicting CSS in the development cohort (0.682 vs. 0.650, P < 0.001), validation cohort (0.682 vs. 0.654, P = 0.022), and test cohort (0.659 vs. 0.611, P = 0.023), respectively. TLM staging continued to show its higher predictive efficacy than the 8
interpretationTLM staging showed a better prognostic performance than the 8
fundingA full list of funding bodies that contributed to this study can be found in the Acknowledgements section.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.