Search

Background and Aim: Gastric cancer (GC) is the common leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Immune-related genes (IRGs) may potentially predict lymph node metastasis (LNM). We aimed to develop a preoperative model to predict LNM based on these IRGs. Methods: In this paper, we compared and evaluated three machine learning models to predict LNM based on publicly available gene expression data from TCGA-STAD. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) method was utilized to feature selection according to its relationships with LN status. The performance of the model was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) and F1 score. Results: The Naive Bayesian model showed better performance and was constructed based on 26 selected gene features, with AUCs of 0.741 in the training set and 0.688 in the test set. The F1 score in the training set and test set was 0.652 and 0.597, respectively. Furthermore, Naive Bayesian model based on 26 IRGs is the first diagnostic tool for the identification of LNM in advanced GC. Conclusion: These results indicate that our new methods have the value of auxiliary diagnosis with promising clinical potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tier 1 exposure tools recommended for use under REACH are designed to easily identify situations that may pose a risk to health through conservative exposure predictions. However, no comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the lower tier tools has previously been carried out. The ETEAM project aimed to evaluate several lower tier exposure tools (ECETOC TRA, MEASE, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) as well as one higher tier tool (STOFFENMANAGER®). This paper describes the results of the external validation of tool estimates using measurement data. Methods: Measurement data were collected from a range of providers, both in Europe and United States, together with contextual information. Individual measurement and aggregated measurement data were obtained. The contextual information was coded into the tools to obtain exposure estimates. Results were expressed as percentage of measurements exceeding the tool estimates and presented by exposure category (non-volatile liquid, volatile liquid, metal abrasion, metal processing, and powder handling). We also explored tool performance for different process activities as well as different scenario conditions and exposure levels. Results: In total, results from nearly 4000 measurements were obtained, with the majority for the use of volatile liquids and powder handling. The comparisons of measurement results with tool estimates suggest that the tools are generally conservative. However, the tools were more conservative when estimating exposure from powder handling compared to volatile liquids and other exposure categories. In addition, results suggested that tool performance varies between process activities and scenario conditions. For example, tools were less conservative when estimating exposure during activities involving tabletting, compression, extrusion, pelletisation, granulation (common process activity PROC14) and transfer of substance or mixture (charging and discharging) at nondedicated facilities (PROC8a; powder handling only). With the exception of STOFFENMANAGER® (for estimating exposure during powder handling), the tools were less conservative for scenarios with lower estimated exposure levels. Conclusions: This is the most comprehensive evaluation of the performance of REACH exposure tools carried out to date. The results show that, although generally conservative, the tools may not always achieve the performance specified in the REACH guidance, i.e. using the 75th or 90th percentile of the exposure distribution for the risk characterisation. Ongoing development, adjustment, and recalibration of the tools with new measurement data are essential to ensure adequate characterisation and control of worker exposure to hazardous substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]