# Intelligent Algorithm-Based CT Imaging for Evaluation of Efficacy of Docetaxel Combined with Fluorouracil on Patients with Gastric Cancer.

> **Reliability concern:** This paper was retracted on 2023-10-11. See notice: 10.1155/2023/9756936.

- **DOI:** [10.1155/2021/1040374](https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1040374)
- **Rating:** Very Limited (1.5 out of 5)
- **Verdict:** A dual-thread chemotherapy comparison and CT-segmentation report whose core claims are undermined by conflicting methods, missing validation metrics, and unverifiable statistics.
- **Framework version:** v5.0
- **Pipeline version:** v0.4
- **Evaluation date:** 2026-06-01
- **Evaluation page:** https://www.nabu.science/paper/10.1155%2F2021%2F1040374

## Strengths

- **Clear patient eligibility criteria** Inclusion and exclusion criteria are explicitly enumerated, which at least defines the intended clinical population for the comparison.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Methods §2.1
- **Detailed algorithm formalism provided** The decision-tree/ID3 formulation and feature descriptions are laid out with equations and a described feature set, enabling readers to understand the intended computational approach at a conceptual level.
  - Dimension: contribution
  - Location: Methods §2.4–2.6
- **Concrete outcome counts reported** The response-category counts (CR/PR/SD/PD) and KPS improvement/stability/decline counts are stated, which provides a minimal basis for checking arithmetic consistency.
  - Dimension: reporting
  - Location: Results §3.2; Results §3.4

## Limitations

- **Contradictory group assignment description** The paper states grouping was based on contrast-agent concentration, but elsewhere defines groups by chemotherapy regimen, undermining the study design and interpretability.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Methods §2.1 vs Methods §2.2; Abstract
- **No quantitative segmentation validation** Segmentation is described qualitatively and visually, but no accuracy metrics, ground truth comparison, or validation protocol is reported to support the algorithm claims.
  - Dimension: contribution
  - Location: Results §3.1; Abstract; Conclusion §5
- **Unverifiable statistical significance claims** Multiple results are described as 'significantly' different with P < 0.05, but the manuscript does not report test statistics, exact p-values, or confidence intervals for key comparisons.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Statistics §2.7; Results §3.2–3.4

## Reliability checks

Concerns (4 of 4 checks).

- **Internal coherence:** Concern. The manuscript’s clinical comparison and imaging-algorithm threads are not coherently linked, and the study design description conflicts on how groups were formed. Core claims of algorithm performance and treatment superiority are asserted without the quantitative evidence needed to verify them.
- **Research conduct:** Concern. Conduct and reporting signals are insufficiently verifiable, and multiple anomalies (e.g., anachronistic drug batch numbers) raise data authenticity concerns beyond routine transparency limitations.
- **Reference integrity:** Clean. All 21 cited references resolved to real publications via PubMed, Crossref, or OpenAlex.
  - References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.

## Post-publication record

- **Status:** Concern
- **Summary:** This paper was retracted on 2023-10-11. See notice: 10.1155/2023/9756936.
- **Last checked:** 2026-10-17