Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36059703›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yilin Li, Fengjiao Xie, Qin Xiong, Honglin Lei, Peimin Feng

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Research progress of machine learning applications in gastric cancer diagnosis and therapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Role of artificial intelligence in gastric diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

5 authors.

Yilin LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Fengjiao XieDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Qin XiongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Honglin LeiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Peimin FengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML) in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and to identify predictors applicable to the models. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 16, 2022. The pooled c-index and accuracy were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analysis was performed based on ML types. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using PROBAST tool. Results: A total of 41 studies (56182 patients) were included, and 33 of the studies divided the participants into a training set and a test set, while the rest of the studies only had a training set. The c-index of ML for LNM prediction in training set and test set was 0.837 [95%CI (0.814, 0.859)] and 0.811 [95%CI (0.785-0.838)], respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.781 [(95%CI (0.756-0.805)] in training set and 0.753 [95%CI (0.721-0.783)] in test set. Subgroup analysis for different ML algorithms and staging of GC showed no significant difference. In contrast, in the subgroup analysis for predictors, in the training set, the model that included radiomics had better accuracy than the model with only clinical predictors (F = 3.546, p = 0.037). Additionally, cancer size, depth of cancer invasion and histological differentiation were the three most commonly used features in models built for prediction. Conclusion: ML has shown to be of excellent diagnostic performance in predicting the LNM of GC. One of the models covering radiomics and its ML algorithms showed good accuracy for the risk of LNM in GC. However, the results revealed some methodological limitations in the development process. Future studies should focus on refining and improving existing models to improve the accuracy of LNM prediction. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022320752.

Indexed as

gastric cancerlymph node metastasisMachine learningmeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36059703
PMCPMC9433672

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.