SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Machine learning for lymph node metastasis prediction of in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk prediction models for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive value of machine learning for PD-L1 expression in NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive performance of radiomics for peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis and radiomics quality assessment.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2026Review
- Chinese expert concern and consensus on applications of artificial intelligence in clinical cancer imaging.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in gastric diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Lung cancer intravasation-on-a-chip: Visualization and machine learning-assisted automatic quantification.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
- Predictive modeling for metastasis in oncology: current methods and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Based Assessment of Inguinal Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Vulva.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Predictive value of machine learning models for lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer: A two-center study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Interpretable deep learning model to predict lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer using whole slide images.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- A discrimination model by machine learning to avoid gastrectomy for early gastric cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of Machine Learning and Logic Regression Algorithms for Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A two-Center Study.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.