ArticleDiscover oncology2023
Machine learning-based predictive model for the differential diagnosis of ≤ 5 cm gastric stromal tumor and gastric schwannoma based on CT images.
Article in Discover oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging and clinicopathological features of a high-risk gastric stromal tumor: a case report.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic resection of gastric schwannoma: a case description.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The clinical symptoms of ≤ 5 cm gastric stromal tumor (GST) and gastric schwannoma (GS) are similar, but the treatment regimens are different. This study explored the value of computed tomography (CT) combined with machine learning (ML) algorithms to find the best model to discriminate them. A total of 126 patients with GST ≤ 5 cm and 35 patients with GS ≤ 5 during 2013-2022 were included. CT imaging features included qualitative data (tumor location, growth pattern, lobulation, surface ulcer status, necrosis, calcification, and surrounding lymph nodes) and quantitative data [long diameter (LD); short diameter (SD); LD/SD ratio; degree of enhancement (DE); heterogeneous degree (HD)]. Patients were randomly divided into a training set (n = 112) and test set (n = 49) using 7:3 stratified sampling. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify independent risk factors. Five ML algorithms were used to build prediction models: Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbor, Random Forest, Extra Trees, and Extreme Gradient Boosting Machine. The analysis identified that HDv, lobulation, and tumor growth site were independent risk factors (P < 0.05). We should focus on these three imaging features of tumors, which are relatively easy to obtain. The area under the curve for the SVM, KNN, RF, ET, and XGBoost prediction models were, respectively, 0.790, 0.895, 0.978, 0.988, and 0.946 for the training set, and were, respectively, 0.848, 0.892, 0.887, 0.912, and 0.867 for the test set. The CT combined with ML algorithms generated predictive models to improve the differential diagnosis of ≤ 5 cm GST and GS which has important clinical practical value. The Extra Trees algorithm resulted in the optimal model.
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.