ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Development of a gastric cancer risk calculator for questionnaire-based surveillance of Iranian dyspeptic patients.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. 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.
- Development and validation of a novel blood-based biomarker for gastric cancer triage in chronic dyspepsia.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Point-of-Care CagA Antibody Positivity and Its Association with Precancerous Gastric Changes.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) is considered a silent killer, taking more than three quarters of a million lives annually. Therefore, prior to further costly and invasive diagnostic approaches, an initial GC risk screening is desperately in demand.
methodsIn order to develop a simple risk scoring system, the demographic and lifestyle indices from 858 GC and 1132 non-ulcer dyspeptic (NUD) patients were analysed. We applied a multivariate logistic regression approach to identify the association between our target predictors and GC versus NUD. The model performance in classification was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Our questionnaire covering 64 predictors, included known risk factors, such as demographic features, dietary habits, self-reported medical status, narcotics use, and SES indicators.
resultsOur model segregated GC from NUD patients with the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of 85.89, 63.9, and 73.03%, respectively, which was confirmed in the development dataset (AUC equal to 86.37%, P < 0.0001). Predictors which contributed most to our GC risk calculator, based on risk scores (RS) and shared percentages (SP), included: 1) older age group [> 70 (RS:+ 241, SP:7.23), 60-70 (RS:+ 221, SP:6.60), 50-60 (RS:+ 134, SP:4.02), 2) history of gastrointestinal cancers (RS:+ 173, SP:5.19), 3) male gender (RS:+ 119, SP:3.55), 4) non-Fars ethnicity (RS:+ 89, SP:2.66), 5) illiteracy of both parents (RS:+ 78, SP:2.38), 6) rural residence (RS:+ 77, SP:2.3), and modifiable dietary behaviors (RS:+ 32 to + 53, SP:0.96 to 1.58).
conclusionOur developed risk calculator provides a primary screening step, prior to the subsequent costly and invasive measures. Furthermore, public awareness regarding modifiable risk predictors may encourage and promote lifestyle adjustments and healthy behaviours.
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.