ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Prognostic factors in gastric cancer survivors comparing Cox proportional hazards and machine learning using a Korean National cohort.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the prognosis of gastric cancer has improved, the exploration of prognostic factors has become increasingly important. This study aimed to identify prognostic factors of gastric cancer using machine learning and statistical methods and to compare the effectiveness of different methodologies in identifying prognostic factors.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of cancer research data from survivors of gastric cancer in Korea. Patients were followed up from the date of curative treatment of gastric cancer to the date of recurrence, cancer-specific death, or censoring. The Cox proportional hazards, random survival forest, XGBoost, and DeepSurv models were used to calculate the risk of recurrence and cancer-specific death. All the models were trained on 80% of the training set, and the concordance index was used for comparison with 20% of the test set. The SHAP value was used for variable interpretation in the machine learning models.
resultsA total of 11,029 gastric cancer survivors with a median follow-up time of 6.19 years were included. Remnant stomach after gastric cancer treatment, T stage and N stage were the most important features for recurrence and mortality according to both the Cox model and the machine learning model. All the models had a concordance index greater than 0.7 without large differences.
conclusionsThe machine learning model is not inferior to conventional statistical analysis models and offers greater flexibility, especially when statistical assumptions are violated. The key prognostic factors identified through this approach include residual stomach after treatment and cancer stage.
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.