» Articles » PMID: 39247098

A Feasibility Study on Utilizing Machine Learning Technology to Reduce the Costs of Gastric Cancer Screening in Taizhou, China

Overview
Journal Digit Health
Date 2024 Sep 9
PMID 39247098
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To optimize gastric cancer screening score and reduce screening costs using machine learning models.

Methods: This study included 228,634 patients from the Taizhou Gastric Cancer Screening Program. We used three machine learning models to optimize Li's gastric cancer screening score: Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Distributed Random Forest (DRF), and Deep Learning (DL). The performance of the binary classification models was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUCPR).

Results: In the binary classification model used to distinguish low-risk and moderate- to high-risk patients, the AUC in the GBM, DRF, and DL full models were 0.9994, 0.9982, and 0.9974, respectively, and the AUCPR was 0.9982, 0.9949, and 0.9918, respectively. Excluding IgG antibody, pepsinogen I, and pepsinogen II, the AUC in the GBM, DRF, and DL models were 0.9932, 0.9879, and 0.9900, respectively, and the AUCPR was 0.9835, 0.9716, and 0.9752, respectively. Remodel after removing variables IgG, PGI, PGII, and G-17, the AUC in GBM, DRF, and DL was 0.8524, 0.8482, 0.8477, and AUCPR was 0.6068, 0.6008, and 0.5890, respectively. When constructing a tri-classification model, we discovered that none of the three machine learning models could effectively distinguish between patients at intermediate and high risk for gastric cancer (F1 scores in the GBM model for the low, medium and high risk: 0.9750, 0.9193, 0.5334, respectively; F1 scores in the DRF model for low, medium, and high risks: 0.9888, 0.9479, 0.6694, respectively; F1 scores in the DL model for low, medium, and high risks: 0.9812, 0.9216, 0.6394, respectively).

Conclusion: We concluded that gastric cancer screening indicators could be optimized when distinguishing low-risk and moderate to high-risk populations, and detecting gastrin-17 alone can achieve a good discriminative effect, thus saving huge expenditures.

References
1.
Sabbagh P, Mohammadnia-Afrouzi M, Javanian M, Babazadeh A, Koppolu V, Vasigala V . Diagnostic methods for Helicobacter pylori infection: ideals, options, and limitations. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 38(1):55-66. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-018-3414-4. View

2.
Ghoshal U, Kumar S, Krishnani N, Kumari N, Chourasia D, Tripathi S . Serological assessment of gastric intestinal metaplasia and atrophy using pepsinogen-I, pepsinogen-II and gastrin-17 levels in a low incidence area of gastric cancer endemic for H. pylori infection. Trop Gastroenterol. 2012; 32(4):292-8. View

3.
Xu H, Li W . Early detection of gastric cancer in China: progress and opportunities. Cancer Biol Med. 2022; 19(12). PMC: 9755958. DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2022.0655. View

4.
Xia Y, Meng G, Zhang Q, Liu L, Wu H, Shi H . Dietary Patterns are Associated with Helicobacter Pylori Infection in Chinese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:32334. PMC: 5004161. DOI: 10.1038/srep32334. View

5.
Leung W, Wu M, Kakugawa Y, Kim J, Yeoh K, Goh K . Screening for gastric cancer in Asia: current evidence and practice. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(3):279-87. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70072-X. View