ArticleBMC surgery2025
Prognostic model for early gastric cardia cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a prognostic model incorporating microRNA-1246 (miR-1246), high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB-1), α1-antitrypsin (A1AT), and inflammatory markers for predicting outcomes in early gastric cardia cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 280 patients with early gastric cardia cancer who underwent ESD between January 2021 and December 2023. Patients were divided into a training set (n = 196) and a validation set (n = 84) at a ratio of 7:3. Influencing factors were screened using univariate, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and multivariate logistic regression analyses in the training set. A nomogram was constructed, and the predictive performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curves. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical value.
resultsThe incidence of poor prognosis was comparable between training (43.88%) and validation set (34.52%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified miR-1246, HMGB-1, A1AT, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and Helicobacter pylori infection as independent risk factors for poor prognosis (All P < 0.05). The nomogram demonstrated acceptable discriminative ability, with AUC of 0.789 (95% CI: 0.701-0.877) in the training set and 0.735 (95% CI: 0.638-0.835) in the validation set. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.625 and 0.841 for the training set, and 0.481 and 0.786 for the validation set, respectively. Calibration curves indicated good agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.
conclusionThe proposed prognostic model offers a practical tool for individualized risk assessment post-ESD. However, the clinical application warrants further validation in large-scale, multi-center prospective studies with long-term follow-up.
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.