Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41854371›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment

A New Cloud-Model-Based Prognostic Model for Gastric Carcinoma.

Ke Liu, Xingyao Suo, Tingting He, Yixuan Wang, Dan Li, YiLin Zhang, Zhe Chen, Kai Mu, Panpan Jiang, Xinle Wei and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Ke LiuHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1672-1059
Xingyao SuoHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Tingting HeHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Yixuan WangHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Dan LiHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
YiLin ZhangHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Zhe ChenHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Kai MuHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Panpan JiangHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Xinle WeiHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
YeLin JiaoDepartment of Pathology, Luoyang First Peoples's Hospital, Luoyang, China.
SheGan GaoHenan Key Laboratory of Microbiome and Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Henan Key Laboratory of Cancer Epigenetics, Cancer Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital (College of Clinical Medicine) of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionRBF neural networks are widely used in gastric carcinoma prognostic models, but they face challenges including difficulty in determining the Gaussian radial basis function parameters of the hidden layer and the diversity/ambiguity of factors affecting gastric carcinoma prognosis. The cloud model, a key tool in uncertainty theory, is adept at handling fuzziness and randomness of complex medical data by quantifying uncertainty. This study integrates the cloud model with RBF neural networks to address the aforementioned limitations.MethodsThe study included 11,474 gastric carcinoma patients from the SEER database and 769 from the Linzhou Centre for Disease Control and Prevention database. A new model combining a cloud model with RBF neural networks was used, where high-dimensional cloud transformations identified RBF hidden layer neurons to optimize the network structure.ResultsComparison with conventional methods showed that the new model predicted overall survival (OS) with a C-index of 0.715. This value is not only significantly higher than that of clinical standard TNM staging (0.591) but also outperforms machine learning methods including random forest (0.614) and traditional RBF neural networks (0.632). It achieves excellent prognostic accuracy meeting the clinical criterion of good discriminative ability, even relying solely on simple clinical factors, which enhances its clinical applicability.ConclusionThe model is a new and effective prognostic model that provides better and more accurate prognostic assessment for gastric carcinoma patients.

Indexed as

Cloud ComputingStomach NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNeural Networks, ComputerPrediction AlgorithmsPrognosisRadial Basis Function NetworksRandom ForestSEER Programcloud modelcloud transformgastric carcinomaprognostic modelRBF neural networks

Identifiers

PMID41854371
PMCPMC13507687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.