Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36777507›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2023

Using nomogram, decision tree, and deep learning models to predict lymph node metastasis in patients with early gastric cancer: a multi-cohort study.

Lulu Zhao, Weili Han, Penghui Niu, Yuanyuan Lu, Fan Zhang, Fuzhi Jiao, Xiadong Zhou, Wanqing Wang, Xiaoyi Luan, Mingyan He and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

16 authors.

Lulu ZhaoNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing, China.
Weili HanState Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Penghui NiuNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing, China.
Yuanyuan LuState Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Fan ZhangLanzhou University Second Hospital Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Fuzhi JiaoThe First Hospital of Lanzhou University Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Xiadong ZhouGansu Provincial Cancer Hospital Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Wanqing WangNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing, China.
Xiaoyi LuanNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing, China.
Mingyan HeGansu Provincial Cancer Hospital Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Quanlin GuanThe First Hospital of Lanzhou University Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Yumin LiLanzhou University Second Hospital Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Yongzhan NieState Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Kaichun WuState Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Dongbing ZhaoNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing, China.
Yingtai ChenNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accurate assessment of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with early gastric cancer is critical to the selection of the most appropriate surgical treatment. This study aims to develop an optimal LNM prediction model using different methods, including nomogram, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, and deep learning methods. In this study, we included two independent datasets: the gastrectomy set (n=3158) and the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) set (n=323). The nomogram, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, and fully convolutional neural networks (FCNN) models were established based on logistic regression analysis of the development set. The predictive power of the LNM prediction models was revealed by time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration plots. We then used the ESD set as an external cohort to evaluate the models' performance. In the gastrectomy set, multivariate analysis showed that gender (P=0.008), year when diagnosed (2006-2010 year, P=0.265; 2011-2015 year, P=0.001; and 2016-2020 year, P<0.001, respectively), tumor size (2-4 cm, P=0.001; and ≥4 cm, P<0.001, respectively), tumor grade (poorly-moderately, P=0.016; moderately, P<0.001; well-moderately, P<0.001; and well, P<0.001, respectively), vascular invasion (P<0.001), and pT stage (P<0.001) were independent risk factors for LNM in early gastric cancer. The area under the curve (AUC) for the validation set using the nomogram, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, and FCNN models were 0.78, 0.76, 0.77, and 0.79, respectively. In conclusion, our multi-cohort study systematically investigated different LNM prediction methods for patients with early gastric cancer. These models were validated and shown to be reliable with AUC>0.76 for all. Specifically, the FCNN model showed the most accurate prediction of LNM risks in early gastric cancer patients with AUC=0.79. Based on the FCNN model, patients with LNM rates of >4.77% are strong candidates for gastrectomy rather than ESD surgery.

Indexed as

early gastric cancerlymph node metastasis

Identifiers

PMID36777507
PMCPMC9906085

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.