ArticleCancer medicine2025
Refining the Feasibility of Machine-Learning-Based Diagnostic Model Utilizing Gut Microbiota Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Refining the Feasibility of Machine-Learning-Based Diagnostic Model Utilizing Gut Microbiota Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundRecently, we developed a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnostic model based on a machine learning algorithm with gut microbiota analysis. In this study, we evaluated the reproducibility of the diagnostic accuracy of the gut microbiota model, compared the diagnostic accuracy of the gut microbiota model with that of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and investigated the practical application potential of the gut microbiota model.
methodsFecal samples were collected from both CRC patients and healthy individuals (HI) who underwent FIT. Gut microbiota analysis was performed using the same pipeline as that used in our previous study. Study subjects were diagnosed using the machine-learning-based gut microbiota model (ml-GMM) with the same cut-off value as in our previous study and by FIT.
resultsThe true positive rates of ml-GMM and FIT were 53.1% and 86.4%, respectively, among 81 CRC patients, whereas the false positive rates among 245 HI cases were 7.3% and 2.4%, respectively. Evaluation of the proportion of either ml-GMM or FIT being positive revealed a rate of 91.4% among CRC patients (Stage 0/I 78.3%; Stage II, 95.5%; Stage III, 96.6%; stage IV, 100.0%), whereas it was 9.4% among HI. Furthermore, we demonstrated a possible synergistic effect of ml-GMM with FIT for detection of more CRC patients.
conclusionsThe reproducibility of the diagnostic accuracy of ml-GMM was confirmed. It was suggested that ml-GMM in combination with FIT could detect more CRC patients than FIT alone.
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.