ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2022
Utility of a deep learning model and a clinical model for predicting bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric cancer.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- In silico models in oncology, neurology, and epidemiology: systems-level and multiscale perspectives.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Review
- Which Method Best Predicts Postoperative Complications: Deep Learning, Machine Learning, or Conventional Logistic Regression?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Multidimensional decision support by artificial intelligence across the full workflow of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Machine-Learning Prediction of Bleeding After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Endoscopic resection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinicopathologic characteristics and risk factors for treatment outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Non-Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Current Concepts, Pitfalls and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of the preventive effects of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan on delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Characteristics of early gastric tumors with different differentiation and predictors of long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Early gastric cancer recurrence after endoscopic submucosal dissection: Not to be ignored!World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBleeding is one of the major complications after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in early gastric cancer (EGC) patients. There are limited studies on estimating the bleeding risk after ESD using an artificial intelligence system.
aimTo derivate and verify the performance of the deep learning model and the clinical model for predicting bleeding risk after ESD in EGC patients.
methodsPatients with EGC who underwent ESD between January 2010 and June 2020 at the Samsung Medical Center were enrolled, and post-ESD bleeding (PEB) was investigated retrospectively. We split the entire cohort into a development set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The deep learning and clinical model were built on the development set and tested in the validation set. The performance of the deep learning model and the clinical model were compared using the area under the curve and the stratification of bleeding risk after ESD.
resultsA total of 5629 patients were included, and PEB occurred in 325 patients. The area under the curve for predicting PEB was 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.78) in the deep learning model and 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.77) in the clinical model, without significant difference (
conclusionA deep learning model can predict and stratify the bleeding risk after ESD in patients with EGC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.