ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Identification of KRAS mutation in rectal cancer based on a 2.5D deep learning model.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
Objective: To explore the utility of a 2.5D deep transfer learning (DTL) model for distinguishing between Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) mutant and wild-type phenotypes in patients with rectal cancer (RC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 138 patients with pathologically confirmed RC who underwent next-generation sequencing to detect KRAS mutations. Among these, 43 KRAS mutant and 95 wild-type cases were enrolled and divided randomly into a training set (30 mutant, 66 wild-type) and a validation set (13 mutant, 29 wild-type) in a 7:3 ratio. Tumor regions of interest (ROIs) were delineated manually slice-by-slice in thin-section arterial-phase computed tomography images. DTL and radiomic features were extracted from ROIs using 2.5D deep learning and traditional radiomic approaches, respectively. After feature-dimensionality reduction and selection, six machine learning models were employed to construct radiomic models and 2.5D deep learning models. The diagnostic performance of each model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: After feature selection, 10 radiomic features and 17 DTL features were included for model construction. The AUCs for the radiomic models ranged from 0.808-0.988 in the training set and 0.521-0.672 in the validation set, with the XGBoost classifier achieving the optimal performance (AUC = 0.672) in the validation set. The AUCs for the 2.5D deep learning models ranged from 0.950-1.000 in the training set and 0.788-0.913 in the validation set, with the support vector machine classifier demonstrating the best diagnostic efficacy (AUC = 0.913) in the validation set. Conclusion: A 2.5D deep learning model can effectively distinguish between KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type RC, outperforming traditional radiomic models. It provides a novel non-invasive approach for the preoperative assessment of KRAS mutation status.
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.