ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
Development and validation of a clinical cure marker based on negative lymph nodes for gastric cancer after gastrectomy.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore lymph node (LN)-related derived indicators as clinical cure markers for gastric cancer (GC) after gastrectomy. Methods: Data of resected GC patients were extracted from the SEER database and our own department. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline differences between the clinical cure and the nonclinical cure groups. The area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to choose the optimal marker, and survival analysis was used to validate the clinical value of the most effective marker. Results: After PSM, the differences in age, sex, race, location, surgical type, and histologic type between the two groups were significantly reduced (all P > 0.05), and the AUCs of examined LNs (ELNs), negative LNs (NLNs), ESR (ELNs/tumor size), ETR (ELNs/T-stage), NSR (NLNs/tumor size), NTR (NLNs/T-stage), EPR (ELNs/PLNs) and NPR (NLNs/PLNs) were 0.522, 0.625, 0.622, 0.692, 0.706, 0.751, 7.43, and 7.50, respectively. When NTR was 5.9, the Youden index of 0.378 was the highest. The sensitivity and specificity were 67.5% and 70.3% in the training group and 66.79% and 67.8% in the validation group, respectively. DCA showed that NTR had the largest net clinical benefit, and patients with NTR greater than 5.9 had significantly prolonged overall survival in our own cohort. Conclusion: NLNs, NTR, NSR, ESR, ETR, NPR and EPR can be used as clinical cure markers. However, NTR was the most effective, and the best cutoff value was 5.9.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.