MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409965136 · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-14204-x

Exploring the potential of machine learning in gastric cancer: prognostic biomarkers, subtyping, and stratification

2025· article· en· W4409965136 on OpenAlexaff
Haniyeh Rafiepoor, Mohammad Mehdi Banoei, Alireza Ghorbankhanloo, Ahad Muhammadnejad, Amirhossein Razavirad, Saeed Soleymanjahi, Saeid Amanpour

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCancer Research Center, Tehran University of Medical SciencesTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsSubtypingSurgical oncologyMedicineStratification (seeds)Risk stratificationOncologyCancerInternal medicineComputational biologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Advancements in the management of gastric cancer (GC) and innovative therapeutic approaches highlight the significance of the role of biomarkers in GC prognosis. Machine-learning (ML)-based methods can be applied to identify the most important predictors and unravel their interactions to classify patients, which might guide prioritized treatment decisions. METHODS: A total of 140 patients with histopathological confirmed GC who underwent surgery between 2011 and 2016 were enrolled in the study. The inspired modification of the partial least squares (SIMPLS)-based model was used to identify the most significant predictors and interactions between variables. Predictive partition analysis was employed to establish the decision tree model to prioritize markers for clinical use. ML models have also been developed to predict TNM stage and different subtypes of GC. Latent class analysis (LCA) and principal component analysis (PCA) were carried out to cluster the GC patients and to find a subgroup of survivors who tended to die. RESULTS: = 0.45-0.70). The analysis identified MMP-7, P53, Ki67, and vimentin as the top predictors. Correlation analysis revealed different patterns of prognostic markers in the non-survivor and survivor cohorts and different GC subtypes. The main prediction models were verified via other ML-based analyses, with a high area under the curve (AUC) (0.84-0.99), specificity (0.82-0.99) and sensitivity (0.87-0.99). Patients were classified into three clusters of mortality risk, which highlighted the most significant mortality predictors. Partition analysis prioritizes the most significant predictors P53 ≥ 6, COX-2 > 2, vimentin > 2, Ki67 ≥ 13 in mortality of patients (AUC = 0.85-0.90). CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the importance of considering multiple variables and their interactions to predict the prognosis of mortality and stage in GC patients through ML-based techniques. These findings suggest that the incorporation of molecular biomarkers may enhance patient prognosis compared to relying solely on clinical factors. Furthermore, they demonstrate the potential for personalized medicine in GC treatment by identifying high-risk patients for early intervention and optimizing therapeutic strategies. The partition analysis technique offers a practical tool for identifying cutoffs and prioritizing markers for clinical application. Additionally, providing Clinical Decision Support systems with predictive tools can assist clinicians and pathologists in identifying aggressive cases, thereby improving patient outcomes while minimizing unnecessary treatments. Overall, this study contributes to the ongoing efforts to improve patient outcomes by advancing our comprehension of the intricate nature of GC.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207