ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
SHAP-explained machine-learning model for high-risk gastric cancer identification.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gastric cancer (GC) remains a major public health concern in Asia. Risk prediction tailored to regional biological features such as Methods: Using a large, real-world, nationwide screening cohort with available endoscopic AG/IM codes, we developed 2-year GC risk prediction models that integrate AG/IM with regional demographic and lifestyle factors. We compared a conventional Cox proportional hazards model (CPHM) with the following machine learning (ML) approaches: extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), decision tree (DT), and logistic regression (LR). Discrimination and calibration were evaluated through internal and external validations. Model interpretability was assessed using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Results: The XGBoost model demonstrated the best overall performance, achieving an AUROC of 0.764 (95% CI, 0.755-0.767), a sensitivity of 0.607 (95% CI, 0.560-0.650), and a specificity of 0.746 (95% CI, 0.744-0.750) in the internal validation. In the external validation cohort, XGBoost also showed the highest discrimination with an AUROC of 0.708 (95% CI, 0.682-0.884), a sensitivity of 0.666 (95% CI, 0.470-0.830), and a specificity of 0.597 (95% CI, 0.590-0.600). SHAP analysis consistently identified Helicobacter pylori infection, age, sex, smoking, and atrophic gastritis/intestinal metaplasia (AG/IM) as the major contributors to increased predicted gastric cancer risk. Discussion: This externally validated and interpretable short-term GC risk model incorporating endoscopically ascertained AG/IM could provide a practical approach for informing risk-adapted screening workflows. The model could help identify individuals at a higher predicted risk for prospective evaluation and closer clinical review. In addition, SHAP clarifies the main contributors to each prediction by highlighting factors most strongly associated with a higher predicted risk.
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.