ArticleBMC medicine2026
Comparative validation and local adaptation of gastric cancer risk assessment models in a large multicenter endoscopic screening cohort in China.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) is a major public health challenge in China, highlighting the need for effective risk stratification to improve early detection. This study aimed to validate existing GC risk assessment models and develop a locally adapted screening approach for GC and precancerous lesions.
methodsFrom 2022 to 2024, a total of 144,329 participants were recruited through a large multicenter endoscopic screening cohort in Zhejiang Province, China, with baseline data collected via interviews and endoscopic examinations. Participants screened in 2022 were used for model development, whereas those screened during 2023-2024 were used for validation and comparative analyses. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and logistic regression were used to construct a new model and a weighted point-based risk score. Six previously published models were externally validated for comparison across the validation set. Model performance and clinical utility were assessed and compared using area under the curve (AUC), detection rates, and decision curve analysis for both GC and the composite outcome of GC/high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN).
resultsA total of 1,419 GC cases were identified in the screening cohort. The newly developed model demonstrated favorable discriminative performance, with an AUC of 0.759 (95% CI: 0.744-0.775) for GC and 0.754 (95% CI: 0.740-0.768) for the composite outcome of GC/HGIN in the validation set. External evaluation of six previously published models showed AUCs ranging from 0.594 (95% CI: 0.558-0.629) to 0.742 (95% CI: 0.725-0.758) for GC, and from 0.602 (95% CI: 0.570-0.635) to 0.744 (95% CI: 0.730-0.759) for GC/HGIN. Risk stratification analyses demonstrated progressively increasing odds of both GC and GC/HGIN across higher-risk quartiles in most evaluated models. In the newly developed model, the highest-risk quartile accounted for 62.25% of GC cases and 58.56% of HGIN cases, indicating substantial enrichment of clinically significant lesions. Decision curve analysis indicated a favorable net benefit of the newly developed model across the evaluated range of threshold probabilities.
conclusionsThe newly developed model demonstrated favorable discrimination, stable geographic performance, and effective risk stratification in a large multicenter screening cohort. These findings support its potential utility for risk-adapted GC screening in Chinese populations.
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.