ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Preoperative predictive model for the probability of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effectively diagnosing lymph node (LN) metastasis (LNM) is crucial in determining the condition of patients with gastric cancer (GC). The present study was devised to develop and validate a preoperative predictive model (PPM) capable of assessing the LNM status of individuals with GC. Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive GC patients from two centers was conducted over the period from January 2021 to December 2023. These patients were utilized to construct a 289-patient training cohort for identifying LNM-related risk factors and developing a PPM, as well as a 90-patient testing cohort used for PPM validation. Results: Of the GC patients included in the training cohort, 67 (23.2%) and 222 (76.8%) were respectively LNM negative and positive. Risk factors independently related to LNM status included cT3 invasion (P = 0.001), CT-reported LN (+) (P = 0.044), and CA199 value (P = 0.030). LNM risk scores were established with the following formula: score = -2.382 + 0.694×CT-reported LN status (+: 1; -: 0)+2.497×invasion depth (cT1: 0; cT2: 1; cT3: 2)+0.032×CA199 value. The area under the curve (AUC) values for PPM and CT-reported LN status were 0.753 and 0.609, respectively, with a significant difference between them (P < 0.001). When clinical data from the testing cohort was included in the PPM, the AUC values for the PPM and CT-reported LN status were 0.756 and 0.568 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The established PPM may be an effective technique for predicting the LNM status of patients preoperatively. This model can better diagnose LNM than CT-reported LN status alone, this model is better able to diagnose LNM.
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.