ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
From complex algorithms to clinical practice: a multicenter machine learning model and simplified decision tree for predicting cachexia risk in gastric cancer.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cachexia is a frequent, specific metabolic syndrome that severely compromises survival in gastric cancer (GC). While early diagnosis is paramount, existing screening methods are limited by complexity and suboptimal accuracy. There is an urgent need for an efficient, data-driven tool derived from routine clinical parameters. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, we analyzed data from three independent hospitals. Variable selection was performed using univariable and multivariable analyses. We constructed and compared multiple machine learning (ML) models to predict cachexia risk. The models' discriminative ability, calibration, and clinical net benefit were comprehensively evaluated via AUC, calibration plots, and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). Results: The study included 1,570 GC patients (cachexia prevalence: 30.3%). Patients were divided into training (n=920), internal testing (n=350), and external validation (n=300) cohorts. Cachexia was significantly associated with poor nutritional status, elevated inflammation, and inferior overall survival (P < 0.01). The Random Forest (RF) model yielded the best performance, maintaining excellent stability across the internal test set (AUC = 0.898) and external validation set (AUC = 0.913). To enhance clinical utility, we further derived a simplified decision tree model based on three accessible markers: CA19-9, CEA, and albumin. This simplified tool retained high diagnostic accuracy (AUC > 0.783) and demonstrated significant positive net benefits in DCA. Conclusion: We successfully established and externally validated a high-performance ML model for predicting GC-associated cachexia. Crucially, the derived simplified decision tree offers a convenient, highly generalizable tool for clinicians to identify high-risk patients using routine laboratory tests, enabling earlier precision nutritional management.
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.