ArticleScientific reports2025
Modified RECIST submodels and ordinal regression model predict neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy response in locally advanced gastric cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated predictive models integrating Computed Tomography(CT) and ultrasound(US) to assess neoadjuvant therapy response in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). A prospective multicenter trial (n = 75) developed five RECIST 1.1-derived submodels (RECIST_Expansion, UC_RECIST, CT_RECIST, V-RECIST, U-RECIST) and an ordinal regression-based nomogram, using pathological tumor regression grade (TRG) as the reference standard. The geometric approximation model V-RECIST exhibited superior diagnostic performance for TRG 0-2 vs. 3 discrimination (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.951, sensitivity 96.8%/specificity 80.1%) and TRG 0-1 vs. 2-3 classification (AUC = 0.868, sensitivity 85.7%/specificity 80.0%), validated by calibration curves and decision curve analysis. The US-only U-RECIST demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.906/0.811), suitable for preliminary assessment due to its safety and cost-effectiveness. The remaining models-RECIST_Expansion (lymph node evaluation only), UC_RECIST (CT-US combined protocol with gastric lesions as measurable targets), and CT_RECIST (CT-only for no-US settings)-also showed satisfactory accuracy. The ordinal regression model achieved slightly higher AUC values (0.952/0.870) and cross-validation accuracy (0.73) compared to modified RECIST models. These findings highlight the clinical utility of revised RECIST 1.1 models across diverse scenarios, with V-RECIST demonstrating the highest performance, U-RECIST offering radiation-free assessment and cost-effectiveness, and the ordinal model enhancing visualization while preserving diagnostic superiority.
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.