ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2025
Development and validation of a relatively accurate gastric cancer high-risk group screening scoring system in urban residents.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2025. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur study aimed to develop a relatively accurate gastric cancer (GC) screening score system for urban residents and to validate the screening efficacy.
methodsThe present study included a derivation cohort (n = 3406) and a validation cohort (n = 868) of urban residents. Applying the full-stack engineering intelligent system platform of Hualian Health Big Data of Shandong University, the clinical physical examination data of subjects were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for GC, and subsequently, an optimal prediction rule was established to create three distinct scoring systems.
resultsIn the GC-risk scoring system I, age, plateletocrit (PCT), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), glucose, albumin, creatinine were independent risk factors of GC, with scores ranging from 0 to 28 and optimal cut-off was 15.5. The second scoring system consisted of age, PCT, RDW-CV, CEA, glucose, albumin, and creatinine, with scores ranging from 0 to 31. The optimal cut-off point was determined to be 15.5. The scoring system III comprise of age, sex, PCT, RDW CV, CEA, glucose, with scores ranging from 0 to 21 and optimal cut-off was 10.5. All three scoring systems demonstrated excellent discrimination for GC, achieving an AUC of 0.884, 0.89, and 0.876, respectively. In external validation, the AUC values were 0.654, 0.658, and 0.714. Notably, the GC-risk scoring system III exhibited the highest screening efficiency.
conclusionsUrban residents benefited from the effective and verified GC-risk scoring systems, which demonstrated excellent performance in identifying individuals with an elevated risk of GC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39377973What 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.