SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2026
Gastric cancer survival prediction using artificial intelligence models based on electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied to prognostic modeling in oncology; however, many AI-based survival prediction models rely on complex multimodal data that are not routinely available in clinical practice. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of AI models based on routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data for predicting 5-year overall survival (5-OS) in patients undergoing surgical treatment for gastric cancer. Data sources: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Nature, MedRxiv, and bioRxiv databases for studies published between January 2015 and July 2025. Study selection: We included studies reporting area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for AI-based 5-OS prediction. Retrospective studies of adult patients with histologically confirmed gastric cancer who underwent curative-intent surgery were eligible, while studies primarily using non-routine multimodal data or lacking AUC outcomes were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis: Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST-AI tool. Meta-analyses were performed to compare machine learning-based models with conventional statistical approaches, as well as different AI algorithm classes, including bagging and boosting ensemble methods, neural networks, random forest, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Random or fixed-effects models were applied according to between-study heterogeneity. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the pooled mean difference in AUC between machine learning-based and conventional statistical models for 5-OS prediction. Secondary outcomes included comparative performance across different AI algorithm classes and identification of the most frequently selected prognostic features. Results: Ten retrospective studies comprising 15,643 patients were included. Machine learning-based models demonstrated a modest but statistically significant improvement in predictive performance compared with conventional approaches, with a pooled mean AUC increase of 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.07; Conclusions: and relevance: AI-based prognostic models utilizing routinely available clinical data provide clinically meaningful improvements in 5-year survival prediction after gastric cancer surgery, and selection of the optimal AI algorithm should be guided by the structure and type of input data to maximize both predictive performance and practical applicability in clinical decision support systems. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261282797, PROSPERO CRD420261282797.
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.