SynthesisBriefings in functional genomics2025
Using artificial intelligence and statistics for managing peritoneal metastases from gastrointestinal cancers.
Synthesis in Briefings in functional genomics, 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
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
objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to investigate various applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and statistical methodologies for analyzing and managing peritoneal metastases (PM) caused by gastrointestinal cancers.
methodsRelevant keywords and search criteria were comprehensively researched on PubMed and Google Scholar to identify articles and reviews related to the topic. The AI approaches considered were conventional machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models, and the relevant statistical approaches included biostatistics and logistic models.
resultsThe systematic literature review yielded nearly 30 articles meeting the predefined criteria. Analyses of these studies showed that AI methodologies consistently outperformed traditional statistical approaches. In the AI approaches, DL consistently produced the most precise results, while classical ML demonstrated varied performance but maintained high predictive accuracy. The sample size was the recurring factor that increased the accuracy of the predictions for models of the same type.
conclusionsAI and statistical approaches can detect PM developing among patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Therefore, if clinicians integrated these approaches into diagnostics and prognostics, they could better analyze and manage PM, enhancing clinical decision-making and patients' outcomes. Collaboration across multiple institutions would also help in standardizing methods for data collection and allowing consistent results.
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.