Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33446730›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Machine learning predicts lymph node metastasis of poorly differentiated-type intramucosal gastric cancer.

Cheng-Mao Zhou, Ying Wang, Hao-Tian Ye, Shuping Yan, Muhuo Ji, Panmiao Liu, Jian-Jun Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cheng-Mao ZhouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. zhouchengmao187@foxmail.com.
Ying WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Hao-Tian YeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Shuping YanDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Muhuo JiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Panmiao LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Jian-Jun YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. yjyangjj@126.com.
First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To construct a machine learning algorithm model of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with poorly differentiated-type intramucosal gastric cancer. 1169 patients with postoperative gastric cancer were divided into a training group and a test group at a ratio of 7:3. The model for lymph node metastasis was established with python machine learning. The Gbdt algorithm in the machine learning results finds that number of resected nodes, lymphovascular invasion and tumor size are the primary 3 factors that account for the weight of LNM. Effect of the LNM model of PDC gastric cancer patients in the training group: Among the 7 algorithm models, the highest accuracy rate was that of GBDT (0.955); The AUC values for the 7 algorithms were, from high to low, XGB (0.881), RF (0.802), GBDT (0.798), LR (0.778), XGB + LR (0.739), RF + LR (0.691) and GBDT + LR (0.626). Results of the LNM model of PDC gastric cancer patients in test group : Among the 7 algorithmic models, XGB had the highest accuracy rate (0.952); Among the 7 algorithms, the AUC values, from high to low, were GBDT (0.788), RF (0.765), XGB (0.762), LR (0.750), RF + LR (0.678), GBDT + LR (0.650) and XGB + LR (0.619). Single machine learning algorithm can predict LNM in poorly differentiated-type intramucosal gastric cancer, but fusion algorithm can not improve the effect of machine learning in predicting LNM.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualMachine LearningModels, BiologicalStomach NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID33446730
PMCPMC7809018
OpenAlexW3123928928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.