Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34636930›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022

Comparison of clinical-computed tomography model with 2D and 3D radiomics models to predict occult peritoneal metastases in advanced gastric cancer.

Jiang Huang, Yidi Chen, Yuying Zhang, Jinhuan Xie, Yiqiong Liang, Wenzhao Yuan, Ting Zhou, Ruizhi Gao, Rong Wen, Yuwei Xia and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 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. Peritoneal Carcinosis: What the Radiologist Needs to Know.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiang HuangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Yidi Chen *Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Yuying ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Jinhuan XieDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Yiqiong LiangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Wenzhao YuanDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Ting ZhouDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Ruizhi GaoDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Rong WenDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China.
Yuwei XiaHuiying Medical Technology Co. Ltd, Beijing, 100192, China.
Liling LongDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, China. cjr.longliling@vip.163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3369-8532
Guangxi Medical University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the ability of a clinical-computed tomography (CT) model vs. 2D and 3D radiomics models for predicting occult peritoneal metastasis (PM) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

methodsIn this retrospective study, we included 49 patients with occult PM and 49 control patients (without PM) who underwent preoperative CT and subsequent surgery between January 2016 and December 2018. Clinical information and CT semantic features were collected, and CT radiomics features were extracted. A predictive clinical-CT model was created using multivariate logistic regression. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator algorithm and logistic regression were used for constructing 2D and 3D radiomics models. These models were validated with an external cohort (n = 30). Receiver operating characteristics curve with area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were used to evaluate predictive performance.

resultsTumor size, mild ascites, and serum CA125 were independent factors predictive of occult PM. The clinical-CT model of these independent factors showed better diagnostic performance than 2D and 3D radiomics models. In the external validation cohort, the AUCs of different models were as follows-clinical-CT model: 0.853 (sensitivity, 66.7%; specificity, 93.3%); 2D radiomics model: 0.622 (sensitivity, 80.0%; specificity, 46.7%); and 3D radiomics model: 0.676 (sensitivity, 60.0%; specificity, 86.0%). The clinical-CT model nomogram showed good clinical predictive efficiency to assess occult PM.

conclusionThe clinical-CT model was better than the radiomics models in predicting occult PM in AGC.

Indexed as

Peritoneal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsHumansPeritoneumRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyGastric cancerOccult peritoneal metastasisRadiomicsTumor

Identifiers

PMID34636930
OpenAlexW3206319890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.