ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Machine learning to identify precachexia and cachexia: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Identification and Prognostic Stratification of Cancer Cachexia Using Explainable Machine Learning: A Multicentre Cohort Study.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Observational
- Pathogenesis, Diagnostic Pathways, and New Therapeutic and Nutritional Strategies for Pancreatic Cancer-Associated Cachexia.Cancers · 2026Review
- Fueling or Fighting Cancer? The Thermogenic Paradox of Brown Adipose Tissue.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Machine Learning in Adapted Physical Activity: Clinical Applications, Monitoring, and Implementation Pathways for Personalized Exercise in Chronic Conditions: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Machine Learning-Based Identification of Blood Biomarkers that Distinguish Precachectic and Cachectic Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Nutritional Support for Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: New (and Old) Frontiers in Management, a Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Tumor-Derived Polyamines Initiate Fat Wasting in Cancer Cachexia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Multimodal AI-driven Biomarker for Early Detection of Cancer Cachexia.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDetection of precachexia is important for the prevention and treatment of cachexia. However, how to identify precachexia is still a challenge.
objectiveThis study aimed to detect cancer precachexia using a simple method and distinguish the different characteristics of precachexia and cachexia.
methodsWe included 3896 participants in this study. We used all baseline characteristics as input variables and trained machine learning (ML) models to calculate the importance of the variables. After filtering the variables based on their importance, the models were retrained. The best model was selected based on the receiver operating characteristic value. Subsequently, we used the same method and process to identify patients with precachexia in a noncachexia population using the same method and process.
resultsParticipants in this study included 2228 men (57.2%) and 1668 women (42.8%), of whom 471 were diagnosed with precachexia, 1178 with cachexia, and the remainder with noncachexia. The most important characteristics of cachexia were eating changes, arm circumference, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level, and C-reactive protein albumin ratio (CAR). The most important features distinguishing precachexia were eating changes, serum creatinine, HDL, handgrip strength, and CAR. The two logistic regression models for screening for cachexia and diagnosing precachexia had the highest area under the curve values of 0.830 and 0.701, respectively. Calibration and decision curves showed that the models had good accuracy.
conclusionWe developed two models for identifying precachexia and cachexia, which will help clinicians detect and diagnose precachexia.
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.