ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2026
Prediction-model development and temporal validation for six-month cancer-specific mortality in
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: Patients diagnosed in 2010-2021 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Eligible cases had C16.0 cardia primary site, adenocarcinoma-related histology, malignant behavior, positive histology, single or first primary malignancy, Results: The analytic cohort included 6,564 patients, with 4,315 in development and 2,249 in temporal validation. Median age was 64 years, 5,189 patients (79.1%) were male, and liver metastasis was present in 3,249 patients (49.5%). Six-month CSM occurred in 1,941 patients (45.0%) in development and 902 patients (40.1%) in temporal validation. The selected XGBoost model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.808 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.795-0.821] in development and 0.786 (95% CI, 0.767-0.806) in temporal validation. In temporal validation, the Brier score was 0.173 versus a null Brier score of 0.240, the calibration slope was 1.130, and the integrated calibration index was 0.026. At the high-risk threshold, sensitivity was 56.7%, specificity was 90.2%, positive predictive value was 79.5%, and negative predictive value was 75.7%. Observed six-month CSM was 20.2%, 32.1%, and 79.5% in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Conclusions: A SEER-based prediction model was developed and temporally validated for six-month CSM in de novo metastatic GEJA. The model provided moderate discrimination, acceptable calibration, and clinically distinct population-level risk strata. Because validation was limited to a later SEER cohort, the model should be externally validated and locally recalibrated before clinical workflow use, and it must not be interpreted as evidence of treatment efficacy.
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.