ArticleTranslational cancer research2026
Tree-based model for diffuse-type gastric cancer prognostication: a population study based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
Background: Diffuse-type gastric cancer (DGC), a subtype of the Lauren classification, is characterized by poor differentiation and a poor prognosis, and effective therapeutic options remain limited. This study aimed to explore the prognostic risk stratification of DGC and to evaluate the effects of various clinical factors on prognosis. Methods: The data of 1,310 DGC patients were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2015. Cox proportional hazards regression, survival trees, and random survival forests were used for multivariable analyses. The relative importance of different clinical variables was determined by the random survival forest analysis for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in DGC. Results: The 1,310 DGC patients had a median survival time of 23 months. Most of the patients were White and presented with poorly differentiated tumors. Three distinct subgroups and four subgroups were identified by survival tree analyses based on OS and CSS, respectively. For OS, the 5-year rates of the three groups were 79.4%, 37.2%, and 11%, while the 10-year rates were 71.4%, 24.3%, and 7%, respectively. For CSS, the 5-year rates of the four groups was 78.7%, 39.3%, 21.4%, and 7.8%, and the 10-year rates were 70.7%, 30.1%, 16.3%, and 6%, respectively. The random survival forest results highlighted the importance of stage, surgery, age, tumor size, and receipt of chemotherapy in determining both OS and CSS. Conclusions: This study identified different prognostic groups and established a risk stratification framework for DGC. Tumor stage and surgery significantly influence risk stratification. The study findings may inform long-term surveillance strategies and guide treatment decision-making for patients with DGC.
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.