Abstract:We read with great interest the article by Li et al1. This study included 255 gastric cancer (GC) patients who underwent surgical R0 resection from a Chinese institution as the training and internal validation cohort and included 587 patients with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria from 4 domestic centres and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database as an external validation cohort. This study constructed a support vector machine (SVM) model based on clinicopathological factors. The model can be used to predict survival outcomes for GC patients after surgical R0 resection accurately and easily, and it presented to be a valuable addition to the current TNM staging system. Despite inspiring and thought-provoking, we have the following comments. First, the authors highlighted that the predictive performance of the SVM was better than that of the nomogram, and in the section Discussion, the authors mentioned: The SVM was proven to be a more powerful classification tool than the nomogram via Cox proportional risk regression analysis. From our perspective of view, for the modeling method, only the most suitable, not the best. In fact, SVM is suited to manage classification based on high-dimensional data with a limited number of training samples to select the most efficient of all available features2,3. When predicting the group for which a new observation is made, SVM models based on a single variable are a viable alternative to logistic regression. However, for the Poisson, Normal, and Exponential distributions, the polynomial SVM model is not recommended by previous research4. If the authors want to show that SVM can classify different types of patients better than logistic regression, they should construct two models, one based on SVM, and another Nomogram based on logistic regression. Then, this study confirmed that the area under the curve of the model based on SVM was greater than that of the nomogram to demonstrate that the SVM-based model might have better predictive performance. It is not too much convincing to cite other references as evidence. Second, the authors mentioned at the outset that they wanted to build a simple tool to predict survival in GC patients. However, pure computational approaches have been viewed as “black boxes” to which data sets are thrown in and calculations are implemented without a clear understanding of what occurs inside. This consequently limits their application. Then, from the point of view of practical clinical application, how can surgeons easily classify the risks of different patients without visual tools such as nomogram? Finally, we are still very appreciative of Li and colleagues for developing such a new model based on SVM to provide a personalized prediction of survival and greatly assist surgeons and GC patients. Ethical approval Not available. Sources of funding This study was supported by Chongqing Technology Innovation and Application Development Special Key Project (No. CSTC2021jscx-gksb-N0009). Authors’ contribution Z.-P.L., H.-S.D., and X.-Y.Y.: manuscript preparation. Y.-Q.Z. and Z.-Y.C.: critical revision. Conflicts of interest disclosure The authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest with regard to the content of this report. Research registration unique identifying number (UIN) Not available. Guarantor Zhi-Yu Chen.

Prognostic Classifier for Stage Ii Gastric Cancer Based by Support Vector Machine.

Prognostic Factors in Stage I Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis

A transcriptomic study for identifying cardia- and non-cardia-specific gastric cancer prognostic factors using genetic algorithm-based methods

Prognostic Assessment of Cervical Cancer Patients by Clinical Staging and Surgical-Pathological Factor: A Support Vector Machine-Based Approach

Figure S2 from Immunomarker Support Vector Machine Classifier for Prediction of Gastric Cancer Survival and Adjuvant Chemotherapeutic Benefit

Prognostic prediction of gastric cancer based on H&E findings and machine learning pathomics

Construction and interpretation of machine learning-based prognostic models for survival prediction among intestinal-type and diffuse-type gastric cancer patients

Three Immunomarker Support Vector Machines-Based Prognostic Classifiers for Stage IB Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.

Prognostic value and predictive model of tumor markers in stage I to III gastric cancer patients

Machine learning-based radiomics score improves prognostic prediction accuracy of stage II/III gastric cancer: A multi-cohort study

Prognostic and Predictive Value of Immunoscore Signature in Gastric Cancer.

An Integrated Classifier Improves Prognostic Accuracy in Non-Metastatic Gastric Cancer

Molecular Prognostic Prediction By Support Vector Machine Integrated Approach For Local Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

A commentary on "An artificial intelligence model to predict survival and chemotherapy benefits for gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy development and validation in international multicenter cohorts".

Molecular Prognostic Prediction For Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma By Support Vector Machine Integrated Approach

Tumor Immune Microenvironment and Chemosensitivity Signature for Predicting Response to Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer.

Machine Learning Models Predict the Mtor Signal Pathway-Related Signature in the Gastric Cancer Involving 2063 Samples of 7 Centers.

Table S6 from Immunomarker Support Vector Machine Classifier for Prediction of Gastric Cancer Survival and Adjuvant Chemotherapeutic Benefit

A Gastric Cancer LncRNAs Model for MSI and Survival Prediction Based on Support Vector Machine

Predicting Overall Survival in Patients with Nonmetastatic Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: A Machine Learning Approach.

Identifying Prognostic Markers From Clinical, Radiomics, and Deep Learning Imaging Features for Gastric Cancer Survival Prediction