Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Feb 7;11(5):641-4.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i5.641.

Quantitative assessment model for gastric cancer screening

Kun Chen  1 , Wei-Ping Yu, Liang Song, Yi-Min Zhu
Affiliations

Quantitative assessment model for gastric cancer screening

Kun Chen et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To set up a mathematic model for gastric cancer screening and to evaluate its function in mass screening for gastric cancer.

Methods: A case control study was carried on in 66 patients and 198 normal people, then the risk and protective factors of gastric cancer were determined, including heavy manual work, foods such as small yellow-fin tuna, dried small shrimps, squills, crabs, mothers suffering from gastric diseases, spouse alive, use of refrigerators and hot food, etc. According to some principles and methods of probability and fuzzy mathematics, a quantitative assessment model was established as follows: first, we selected some factors significant in statistics, and calculated weight coefficient for each one by two different methods; second, population space was divided into gastric cancer fuzzy subset and non gastric cancer fuzzy subset, then a mathematic model for each subset was established, we got a mathematic expression of attribute degree (AD).

Results: Based on the data of 63 patients and 693 normal people, AD of each subject was calculated. Considering the sensitivity and specificity, the thresholds of AD values calculated were configured with 0.20 and 0.17, respectively. According to these thresholds, the sensitivity and specificity of the quantitative model were about 69% and 63%. Moreover, statistical test showed that the identification outcomes of these two different calculation methods were identical (P>0.05).

Conclusion: The validity of this method is satisfactory. It is convenient, feasible, economic and can be used to determine individual and population risks of gastric cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Math 1
Math 1
Math(A1).
Math 2
Math 2
Math(A2).
Math 3
Math 3
Math(A3).
Math 4
Math 4
Math(A4).
Math 5
Math 5
Math(A5).
Math 6
Math 6
Math(A6).
Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagnostic value of risk assessment for gastric cancer by methed 1 (A) and method 2 (B).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Correa P, Piazuelo MB, Camargo MC. The future of gastric cancer prevention. Gastric Cancer. 2004;7:9–16. - PubMed
    1. Tan ZH. Modern epidemiology. 1st ed. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House. 2001:162.
    1. Zhu YM, Chen K, Zhang Y, Zhu YP, Liu XY, Chen XX, Xu ZZ, Chen JH. Analysis on risk factors of gastric cancer in island residents. Zhongguo Gonggong Weisheng. 2000;16:916.
    1. Xia HH, Wong BC, Lam SK. Chemoprevention of gastric cancer: current status. Chin Med J (Engl) 2003;116:5–10. - PubMed
    1. Sun XD, Mu R, Zhou YS, Dai XD, Zhang SW, Huangfu XM, Sun J, Li LD, Lu FZ, Qiao YL. Analysis of mortality rate of stomach cancer and its trend in twenty years in China. Zhonghua ZhongLiu ZaZhi. 2004;26:4–9. - PubMed

Publication types