ArticleDigital health
A feasibility study on utilizing machine learning technology to reduce the costs of gastric cancer screening in Taizhou, China.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To optimize gastric cancer screening score and reduce screening costs using machine learning models. Methods: This study included 228,634 patients from the Taizhou Gastric Cancer Screening Program. We used three machine learning models to optimize Li's gastric cancer screening score: Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Distributed Random Forest (DRF), and Deep Learning (DL). The performance of the binary classification models was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUCPR). Results: In the binary classification model used to distinguish low-risk and moderate- to high-risk patients, the AUC in the GBM, DRF, and DL full models were 0.9994, 0.9982, and 0.9974, respectively, and the AUCPR was 0.9982, 0.9949, and 0.9918, respectively. Excluding Conclusion: We concluded that gastric cancer screening indicators could be optimized when distinguishing low-risk and moderate to high-risk populations, and detecting gastrin-17 alone can achieve a good discriminative effect, thus saving huge expenditures.
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.