Development and validation of a prediction model for VTE risk in gastric and esophageal cancer patients.

Xingyue Zheng, Liuyun Wu, Lian Li, Yin Wang, Qinan Yin, Lizhu Han, Xingwei Wu, Yuan Bian

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Xingyue Zheng *Department of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Liuyun Wu *Department of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Lian Li *Department of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Yin Wang *Department of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Qinan YinDepartment of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Lizhu HanDepartment of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Xingwei WuDepartment of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Yuan BianDepartment of Pharmacy, Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study focuses on the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with gastric or esophageal cancer (GC/EC), investigating the risk factors for VTE in this population. Utilizing machine learning techniques, the research aims to develop an interpretable VTE risk prediction model. The goal is to identify patients with gastric or esophageal cancer who are at high risk of VTE at an early stage in clinical practice, thereby enabling precise anticoagulant prophylaxis and thrombus management. Methods: This study is a real-world investigation aimed at predicting VTE in patients with GC/EC. Data were collected from inpatients diagnosed with GC/EC at Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital between 1 January 2018, and 31 June 2023. Using nine supervised learning algorithms, 576 prediction models were developed based on 56 available variables. Subsequently, a simplified modeling approach was employed using the top 12 feature variables from the best-performing model. The primary metric for assessing the predictive performance of the models was the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Additionally, the training data used to construct the best model in this study were employed to externally validate several existing assessment models, including the Padua, Caprini, Khorana, and COMPASS-CAT scores. Results: A total of 3,742 cases of GC/EC patients were collected after excluding duplicate visit information. The study included 861 (23.0%) patients, of which 124 (14.4%) developed VTE. The top five models based on AUC for full-variable modeling are as follows: GBoost (0.9646), Logic Regression (0.9443), AdaBoost (0.9382), CatBoost (0.9354), XGBoost (0.8097). For simplified modeling, the models are: Simp-CatBoost (0.8811), Simp-GBoost (0.8771), Simp-Random Forest (0.8736), Simp-AdaBoost (0.8263), Simp-Logistic Regression (0.8090). After evaluating predictive performance and practicality, the Simp-GBoost model was determined as the best model for this study. External validation of the Padua score, Caprini score, Khorana score, and COMPASS-CAT score based on the training set of the Simp-GBoost model yielded AUCs of 0.4367, 0.2900, 0.5000, and 0.3633, respectively. Conclusion: In this study, we analyzed the risk factors of VTE in GC/EC patients, and constructed a well-performing VTE risk prediction model capable of accurately identifying the extent of VTE risk in patients. Four VTE prediction scoring systems were introduced to externally validate the dataset of this study. The results demonstrated that the VTE risk prediction model established in this study held greater clinical utility for patients with GC/EC. The Simp-GB model can provide intelligent assistance in the early clinical assessment of VTE risk in these patients.

Indexed as

Esophageal cancerGastric cancerprediction modelrisk factorsvenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID40093315

DOI10.3389/fphar.2025.1448879

PMCPMC11906997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.