ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Prognostic model for patients with hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach (HAS) is a rare form of gastric cancer. This study assessed the impact of tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage on survival in HAS compared with non-HAS patients, identified prognostic factors, and developed a predictive nomogram.
methodsPatients diagnosed with HAS between September 2012 and August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical characteristics and survival outcomes were compared between HAS and non-HAS groups before and after TNM stage matching. Prognostic factors were determined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses, and nomograms were constructed for survival prediction.
resultsWithout stage matching, HAS patients showed significantly worse survival than non-HAS patients (HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.05-4.67, p < 0.001). After TNM stage matching, no significant difference was observed (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.79-1.64, p = 0.476). The nomogram model incorporating Sal-like protein 4 (SALL4), serum iron (Fe), and free prostate-specific antigen (fPSA) accurately predicted overall survival (AUC = 0.946, 95% CI: 0.897-0.994).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that poorer outcomes in HAS are primarily due to advanced TNM stages, and that SALL4, serum Fe, and fPSA serve as key prognostic indicators.
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.