ArticleDigital health
Predicting early gastric cancer risk using machine learning: A population-based retrospective study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model for StagingJournal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Computational approaches to multimodal data integration in rheumatoid arthritis: from data landscape to clinical translation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model Based on Peripheral Blood Biomarkers for Esophageal Cancer Risk Prediction.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models based on blood routine tests and tumor markers in early screening of primary bronchogenic lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Gastric Cancer: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Outcome prediction for cholangiocarcinoma prognosis: Embracing the machine learning era.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal cancers: Diagnostic, prognostic, and surgical strategies.Cancer letters · 2025Review
- LightGBM is an Effective Predictive Model for Postoperative Complications in Gastric Cancer: A Study Integrating Radiomics with Ensemble Learning.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early detection and treatment are crucial for reducing gastrointestinal tumour-related mortality. The diagnostic efficiency of the most commonly used diagnostic markers for gastric cancer (GC) is not very high. A single laboratory test cannot meet the requirements of early screening, and machine learning methods are needed to aid the early diagnosis of GC by combining multiple indicators. Methods: Based on the XGBoost algorithm, a new model was developed to distinguish between GC and precancerous lesions in newly admitted patients between 2018 and 2023 using multiple laboratory tests. We evaluated the ability of the prediction score derived from this model to predict early GC. In addition, we investigated the efficacy of the model in correctly screening for GC given negative protein tumour marker results. Results: The XHGC20 model constructed using the XGBoost algorithm could distinguish GC from precancerous disease well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.901), with a sensitivity, specificity and cut-off value of 0.830, 0.806 and 0.265, respectively. The prediction score was very effective in the diagnosis of early GC. When the cut-off value was 0.27, and the AUC was 0.888, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.797 and 0.807, respectively. The model was also effective at evaluating GC given negative conventional markers (AUC = 0.970), with the sensitivity and specificity of 0.941 and 0.906, respectively, which helped to reduce the rate of missed diagnoses. Conclusions: The XHGC20 model established by the XGBoost algorithm integrates information from 20 clinical laboratory tests and can aid in the early screening of GC, providing a useful new method for auxiliary laboratory diagnosis.
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.