Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41949664›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026

Machine learning nomograms for gastric cancer: addressing data limitations in SEER-based models.

Amirhosein Naseri, Mohammad Hossein Antikchi, Hossein Neamatzadeh

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amirhosein NaseriDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Imam Reza Hospital, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Hossein AntikchiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yazd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran. mhantikchi.gastro@gmail.com.
Hossein NeamatzadehHematology and Oncology Research Center, Non-Communicable Diseases Research Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Science, Yazd, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database is widely used to develop machine learning prognostic models for gastric cancer, yet data limitations restrict their clinical utility. We critically appraise the recent multicenter machine learning study by Guan et al., which reported superior prognostication compared with TNM staging, and identify eight methodological concerns: chemotherapy sensitivity of only 68% with systematic under capture of one-third of treated patients; complete loss of regimen-specific information that prevents distinction between curative perioperative therapy and palliative regimens; absence of performance status data despite it being the strongest predictor of outcome; missing molecular biomarkers (HER2, MSI-H, TMB, TCGA subtype) increasingly essential for precision oncology; unknown surgical technique quality metrics; and substantial cohort heterogeneity (surgery rates 26.6% vs 59.8%). These limitations collectively prevent individual treatment selection at the bedside. We conclude that SEER-based machine learning models should remain complementary to—rather than substitutes for—guideline-based decision-making, and future progress requires integration of regimen-specific treatment data, documented performance status, comorbidity indices, and molecular biomarkers.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNomogramsStomach NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm StagingPredictive Learning ModelsPrognosisSEER Programdata qualitygastric cancermachine learningprecision oncologyprognostic modelsSEER database

Identifiers

PMID41949664
PMCPMC13061813

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.