ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2026
Machine Learning-Based Diagnostic Models for Early Gastric Cancer Using Clinical Laboratory Indicators.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 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
Background: The occurrence of gastric cancer is a complex pathological process leading to multiple abnormalities in clinical laboratory indicators. Machine learning techniques can make it easy to handle millions of variables to make more accurate predictions and diagnoses of diseases. Methods: Clinical data from gastric cancer patients in a single-center who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2023 were collected. Five machine learning algorithms (extreme gradient boosting, XGBoost; random forest, RF; support vector machine-recursive feature elimination, SVM-RFE; light gradient boosting machine, LGBM; and recursive partitioning, rpart) were utilized to develop diagnostic models. Among the date, 60% were randomly selected to train the models, while the remaining 40% were used for testing. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), F1-score value, sensitivity, and specificity to evaluate the performance of models. Results: The XGBoost algorithm showed the best performance in gastric cancer diagnosis, with significantly higher area under curve (AUC) (combining blood indicators and pathological parameters, AUC=0.9909) value than other models. Glutathione reductase (GR), carbohydrate antigen 724 (CA724), erythrocytes (RBC), carbohydrate antigen 242 (CA242), and albumin (ALB) contributed the most to the diagnosis. The tumor size were independent risk factors for early gastric cancer. Conclusion: Machine learning combined blood indicators and pathological parameters could predict gastric cancer risk more accurately. The XGBoost model had the best diagnostic performance. The study provides confirmatory data support for the preclinical implementation of the model.
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.