ArticleBMC cancer2025
Risk factors and prediction of distant metastasis (DM) of colon adenocarcinoma: a logistic regression and machine learning study based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the limitations of traditional imaging examinations to detect distant metastasis (DM) (e.g., low sensitivity), this study is to identify pathological and laboratory risk factors and establish models predicting distant metastasis of colon adenocarcinoma (CA) patients.
methodsCA Patients diagnosed between the year of 2018 and 2021 were retrieved from SEER. Logistic regression was utilized to find independent risk factors (IRFs) of DM and 12 models including BNB (Bernoulli naïve bayes), DT (Decision tree), GBC (Gradient Boosting Classifier), GNB (Gaussian naïve bayes), KNN (K-nearest neighbor), LDA (Linear Discriminant Analysis), LR (Logistic regression), MLP (Multi-layer perceptron classifier), MNB (Multinomial naïve bayes), QDA (Quadratic discriminant analysis), RFC (Random forest classifier) and SVC (Support vector machine) were established and evaluated on the training set and test set (7:3) of the retrieved patients. Additionally, CA patient data was collected from Jincheng People’s Hospital (JCPH) as an external validation set for the prediction efficacy of the models.
results7,000 and 83 CA patients were retrieved from SEER and JCPH respectively, and 8 IRFs including age 60–79 (OR = 0.589, 95% CI: 0.391–0.887) and age > 80 (OR = 0.456, 95% CI: 0.287–0.722), primary site – cecum (OR = 1.305, 95% CI: 1.023–1.664), TNM stage – T3 (OR = 8.869, 95% CI: 2.151–36.569) and T4 (OR = 15.912, 95% CI: 3.839–65.955), TNM stage – N1 (OR = 3.853, 95% CI: 2.919–5.087) and N2 (OR = 8.480, 95% CI: 6.322–11.374), number of regional nodes examined > 12 (OR = 0.439, 95% CI: 0.326–0.591), tumor deposits (OR = 1.989, 95% CI: 1.639–2.414), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (OR = 4.552, 95% CI: 3.747–5.530) and perineural invasion (OR = 1.352, 95% CI: 1.112–1.643) were identified. LR showed the best predictive efficacy both on the test (AUC = 0.892, sensitivity = 0.825, specificity = 0.801) and external validation set (AUC = 0.868, sensitivity = 1.000, specificity = 0.727).
conclusionsMachine learning is a promising way to assist the detection of DM for CA patients.
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.