ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative study of four sarcopenia-related risk prediction models for identifying SARC-F screening positivity in patients with colorectal 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the performance of four sarcopenia-related risk prediction models in identifying SARC-F screening positivity among patients with colorectal cancer, and to provide evidence for early inpatient screening. Methods: A total of 340 hospitalized patients with colorectal cancer were included. SARC-F screening positivity was defined as a Chinese version SARC-F score of ≥4. The Ren LSMI score, Lim LP-SMG score, Zhang Xuejing score, and Zhang Ying linear predictor were reconstructed according to their original formulas. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the DeLong test, 10-fold cross-validated recalibration, Brier score, calibration indices, and decision curve analysis. Results: Among the 340 patients, 52 were SARC-F screening positive, with a positivity rate of 15.29%. The AUC of Model 1 was significantly lower than those of the other three models, while no significant differences were observed among Models 2, 3, and 4. After recalibration, Model 3 had the lowest Brier score of 0.088, with a calibration intercept of -0.014 and a calibration slope of 0.909, and showed clinical net benefit across the threshold probability range of 1%-50%. Model 4 had the highest sensitivity, whereas Model 1 had relatively high specificity. Although Model 2 showed a high AUC, its recalibration slope was negative, suggesting that it was not suitable for direct prediction of this outcome. Conclusion: All four models showed some ability to identify SARC-F screening positivity. Among them, the Zhang Xuejing score demonstrated relatively stable overall performance and may serve as a preferred candidate tool for early inpatient screening. The Zhang Ying model may be useful for reducing missed cases, while the Ren LSMI score may help reduce false positives. Further validation in independent multicenter cohorts is warranted.
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.