ArticleDigital health
Biomarker-based and interpretable machine learning framework for predicting pathological stage in gastric cancer: A retrospective analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Glycomic Insights in Gynecological Disease: From Molecular Mechanisms to Precision Diagnostics and Therapeutics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and risk factors in patients with colon cancer liver metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate preoperative staging of gastric cancer (GC) is essential for guiding treatment strategies. However, reliable noninvasive tools for distinguishing early-stage from advanced-stage GC remain limited. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 434 patients with GC. Eleven supervised machine learning algorithms were developed using preoperative laboratory parameters and engineered ratio features capturing inflammatory, metabolic, and tumor-related profiles. CatBoost showed superior performance and was selected for SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)-based interpretation. A forward feature selection strategy identified an optimal nine-feature panel. Model performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, with robustness validated through repeated 10-fold cross-validation and 1000 bootstrap iterations. Results: Among 434 patients, 251 (57.8%) had stage I and 183 (42.2%) had stages II-III disease. Incorporating biologically informed ratio features significantly enhanced model performance; CatBoost's AUC improved from 0.802 to 0.981. SHAP-based selection yielded a compact, interpretable nine-feature model. The final CatBoost model achieved a mean AUC of 0.9499 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9421-0.9570), with high consistency across cross-validation folds. SHAP analysis identified uric acid (UA) and APTT as key predictors, and interaction analysis revealed stable multivariate relationships, supporting the model's biological plausibility. Conclusions: We developed a robust, interpretable machine learning model for GC staging using routine blood tests and derived ratio features. The model demonstrated excellent discrimination, interpretability, and clinical utility, offering a practical tool for personalized risk stratification and treatment planning.
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.