A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Development and validation of CT-based fusion model for preoperative prediction of invasion and lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: In the context of precision medicine, radiomics has become a key technology in solving medical problems. For adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG), developing a preoperative CT-based prediction model for AEG invasion and lymph node metastasis is crucial.

Methods: We retrospectively collected 256 patients with AEG from two centres. The radiomics features were extracted from the preoperative diagnostic CT images, and the feature selection method and machine learning method were applied to reduce the feature size and establish the predictive imaging features. By comparing the three machine learning methods, the best radiomics nomogram was selected, and the average AUC was obtained by 20 repeats of fivefold cross-validation for comparison. The fusion model was constructed by logistic regression combined with clinical factors. On this basis, ROC curve, calibration curve and decision curve of the fusion model are constructed.

Results: The predictive efficacy of fusion model for tumour invasion depth was higher than that of radiomics nomogram, with an AUC of 0.764 vs. 0.706 in the test set, P < 0.001, internal validation set 0.752 vs. 0.697, P < 0.001, and external validation set 0.756 vs. 0.687, P < 0.001, respectively. The predictive efficacy of the lymph node metastasis fusion model was higher than that of the radiomics nomogram, with an AUC of 0.809 vs. 0.732 in the test set, P < 0.001, internal validation set 0.841 vs. 0.718, P < 0.001, and external validation set 0.801 vs. 0.680, P < 0.001, respectively.

Conclusion: We have developed a fusion model combining radiomics and clinical risk factors, which is crucial for the accurate preoperative diagnosis and treatment of AEG, advancing precision medicine. It may also spark discussions on the imaging feature differences between AEG and GC (Gastric cancer).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12220218PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-025-01777-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fusion model
16
invasion lymph
8
lymph node
8
node metastasis
8
adenocarcinoma esophagogastric
8
esophagogastric junction
8
machine learning
8
radiomics nomogram
8
model
5
development validation
4

Similar Publications