Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34771416›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Artificial Intelligence in Gastric Cancer: Identifying Gastric Cancer Using Endoscopic Images with Convolutional Neural Network.

Md Mohaimenul Islam, Tahmina Nasrin Poly, Bruno Andreas Walther, Ming-Chin Lin, Yu-Chuan Jack Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Limited discriminative performance of endoscopic deep learning forFrontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Artificial Intelligence in Dementia: A Bibliometric Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Md Mohaimenul IslamGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-6026-2748
Tahmina Nasrin PolyGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.
Bruno Andreas WaltherDeep Sea Ecology and Technology, Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Am Handelshafen 12, D-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0425-1443
Ming-Chin LinGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-9624-9705
Yu-Chuan Jack LiGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most newly diagnosed cancers and the fifth leading cause of death globally. Identification of early gastric cancer (EGC) can ensure quick treatment and reduce significant mortality. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review with a meta-analysis of current literature to evaluate the performance of the CNN model in detecting EGC. We conducted a systematic search in the online databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) for all relevant original studies on the subject of CNN in EGC published between 1 January 2010, and 26 March 2021. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the risk of bias. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. Moreover, a summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was plotted. Of the 171 studies retrieved, 15 studies met inclusion criteria. The application of the CNN model in the diagnosis of EGC achieved a SROC of 0.95, with corresponding sensitivity of 0.89 (0.88-0.89), and specificity of 0.89 (0.89-0.90). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for experts endoscopists were 0.77 (0.76-0.78), and 0.92 (0.91-0.93), respectively. However, the overall SROC for the CNN model and expert endoscopists was 0.95 and 0.90. The findings of this comprehensive study show that CNN model exhibited comparable performance to endoscopists in the diagnosis of EGC using digital endoscopy images. Given its scalability, the CNN model could enhance the performance of endoscopists to correctly stratify EGC patients and reduce work load.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconvolutional neural networkdeep learningendoscopy imagegastric cancer

Identifiers

PMID34771416
PMCPMC8582393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.