ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Development and validation of an individualized nomogram for predicting distant metastases in gastric cancer using a CT radiomics-clinical model.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to develop and validate a model for accurately assessing the risk of distant metastases in patients with gastric cancer (GC). Methods: A total of 301 patients (training cohort, n = 210; testing cohort, n = 91) with GC were retrospectively collected. Relevant clinical predictors were determined through the application of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Then the clinical model was established. Venous phase computed tomography (VPCT) images were utilized to extract radiomic features, and relevant features were selected using univariate analysis, Spearman correlation coefficient, and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression. Subsequently, radiomics scores were calculated based on the selected features. Radiomics models were constructed using five machine learning algorithms according to the screened features. Furthermore, separate joint models incorporating radiomic features and clinically independent predictors were established using traditional logistic regression algorithms and machine learning algorithms, respectively. All models were comprehensively assessed through discrimination, calibration, reclassification, and clinical benefit analysis. Results: The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age, histological grade, and N stage were independent predictors of distant metastases. The radiomics score was derived from 15 selected features out of a total of 944 radiomic features. The predictive performance of the joint model 1 [AUC (95% CI) 0.880 (0.811-0.949)] constructed using logistic regression is superior to that of the joint model 2 [AUC (95% CI) 0.834 (0.736-0.931)] constructed using SVM algorithm. The joint model 1 [AUC(95% CI) 0.880(0.811-0.949)], demonstrated superior performance compared to the clinical model [AUC(95% CI) 0.781(0.689-0.873)] and radiomics model [AUC(95% CI) 0.740(0.626-0.855), using LR algorithm]. The NRI and IDI values for the joint model 1 and clinical model were 0.115 (95% CI 0.014 -0.216) and 0.132 (95% CI 0.093-0.171), respectively; whereas for the joint model 1 and LR model, they were found to be 0.130 (95% CI 0.018-0.243) and 0.116 (95% CI 0.072-0.160), respectively. Decision curve analysis indicated that the joint model 1 exhibited a higher clinical net benefit than other models. Conclusions: The nomogram of the joint model, integrating radiomic features and clinically independent predictors, exhibits robust predictive capability for early identification of high-risk patients with a propensity for distant metastases of GC.
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.