Trial reportBMC medical imaging2023
Machine learning for predicting the risk stratification of 1-5 cm gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors based on CT.
Trial report in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Construction and interpretation of machine learning-based prognostic models for survival prediction among intestinal-type and diffuse-type gastric cancer patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroudTo predict the malignancy of 1-5 cm gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) by machine learning (ML) on CT images using three models - Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT) and Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT).
methods231 patients from Center 1 were randomly assigned into the training cohort (n = 161) and the internal validation cohort (n = 70) in a 7:3 ratio. The other 78 patients from Center 2 served as the external test cohort. Scikit-learn software was used to build three classifiers. The performance of the three models were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the curve (AUC). Diagnostic differences between ML models and radiologists were compared in the external test cohort. Important features of LR and GBDT were analyzed and compared.
resultsGBDT outperformed LR and DT with the largest AUC values (0.981 and 0.815) in the training and internal validation cohorts and the greatest accuracy (0.923, 0.833 and 0.844) across all three cohorts. However, LR was found to have the largest AUC value (0.910) in the external test cohort. DT yielded the worst accuracy (0.790 and 0.727) and AUC values (0.803 and 0.700) in both the internal validation cohort and the external test cohort. GBDT and LR performed better than radiologists. Long diameter was demonstrated to be the same and most important CT feature for GBDT and LR.
conclusionsML classifiers, especially GBDT and LR with high accuracy and strong robustness, were considered to be promising in risk classification of 1-5 cm gastric GISTs based on CT. Long diameter was found the most important feature for risk stratification.
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.