ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Machine learning models using serum gastric biomarkers for the non-invasive prediction of atrophic gastritis: a comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A machine-learning model for staging autoimmune gastritis based on endoscopic and serological features.Frontiers in immunology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: The early, non-invasive detection of chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG), a precancerous lesion, remains a clinical challenge. While serological biomarkers are promising alternatives to endoscopy for screening, their predictive accuracy using conventional methods is suboptimal. This study aimed to identify key predictors of CAG and to comparatively develop multiple machine learning (ML) models, evaluating whether ML offers a definitive advantage and identifying a reliable model for triaging patients to endoscopy. Methods: In this retrospective diagnostic study (conducted from January to October 2020), 222 subjects (CAG prevalence: 30.6%) were stratified randomly into a training set (80%) and an independent test set (20%). Feature selection was performed exclusively on the training set using multivariate logistic regression, which identified four independent predictors: PGI, the PGI/PGII ratio, age, and anti- Results: Multivariable analysis identified the four predictors, with anti- Conclusion: Simple, interpretable linear models (Elastic Net and Logistic Regression) based on four routine clinical parameters provide a robust tool for the non-invasive identification of CAG in a clinical population referred for endoscopic evaluation. They show particular strength in ruling out disease, supporting their potential role as a triage tool. In this setting, they demonstrated more consistent performance than more complex machine learning algorithms. External validation in broader populations is warranted to confirm generalizability before clinical implementation.
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.