Frontiers in Medicine (Apr 2024)

The development and validation of automated machine learning models for predicting lymph node metastasis in Siewert type II T1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction

  • Chenghao Lu,
  • Chenghao Lu,
  • Lu Liu,
  • Lu Liu,
  • Minyue Yin,
  • Minyue Yin,
  • Minyue Yin,
  • Jiaxi Lin,
  • Jiaxi Lin,
  • Shiqi Zhu,
  • Shiqi Zhu,
  • Jingwen Gao,
  • Jingwen Gao,
  • Shuting Qu,
  • Shuting Qu,
  • Guoting Xu,
  • Guoting Xu,
  • Lihe Liu,
  • Lihe Liu,
  • Jinzhou Zhu,
  • Jinzhou Zhu,
  • Chunfang Xu,
  • Chunfang Xu,
  • Chunfang Xu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1266278
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundLymph node metastasis (LNM) is considered an essential prognosis factor for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), which also affects the treatment strategies of AEG. We aimed to evaluate automated machine learning (AutoML) algorithms for predicting LNM in Siewert type II T1 AEG.MethodsA total of 878 patients with Siewert type II T1 AEG were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to develop the LNM predictive models. The patients from two hospitals in Suzhou were collected as the test set. We applied five machine learning algorithms to develop the LNM prediction models. The performance of predictive models was assessed using various metrics including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the area under the curve (AUC), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.ResultsPatients with LNM exhibited a higher proportion of male individuals, a poor degree of differentiation, and submucosal infiltration, with statistical differences. The deep learning (DL) model demonstrated relatively good accuracy (0.713) and sensitivity (0.868) among the five models. Moreover, the DL model achieved the highest AUC (0.781) and sensitivity (1.000) in the test set.ConclusionThe DL model showed good predictive performance among five AutoML models, indicating the advantage of AutoML in modeling LNM prediction in patients with Siewert type II T1 AEG.

Keywords