ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
A system based on deep convolutional neural network improves the detection of early gastric cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Helicobacter pylori infection on deep learning-assisted detection of gastric neoplastic lesions under white light endoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted diagnosis of early gastric cancer: present practice and future prospects.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early gastric cancer (EGC) has a high survival rate, but it is difficult to diagnosis. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) based on deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) has made significant progress in the field of gastroenterology. The purpose of this study was to establish a DCNN assist system to improve the detection of EGC. Methods: 3400 EGC and 8600 benign images were collected to train the DCNN to detect EGC. Subsequently, its diagnostic ability was compared to that of endoscopists using an independent internal test set (ITS, including 1289 images) and an external test set (ETS, including 542 images) come from three digestive center. Results: The diagnostic time of DCNN and endoscopists were 0.028s, 8.05 ± 0.21s, 7.69 ± 0.25s in ITS, and 0.028s, 7.98 ± 0.19s, 7.50 ± 0.23s in ETS, respectively. In ITS, the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy of DCNN are 88.08%(95% confidence interval,95%CI,85.24%-90.44%), 88.60% (95%CI,86.74%-90.22%), respectively. In ETS, the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy are 92.08% (95%CI, 87.91%- 94.94%),92.07%(95%CI, 89.46%-94.08%),respectively. DCNN outperformed all endoscopists in ETS, and had a significantly higher sensitivity than the junior endoscopists(JE)(by18.54% (95%CI, 15.64%-21.84%) in ITS, also higher than JE (by21.67%,95%CI, 16.90%-27.32%) and senior endoscopists (SE) (by2.08%, 95%CI, 0.75%-4.92%)in ETS. The accuracy of DCNN model was higher (by10.47%,95%CI, 8.91%-12.27%) than that of JE in ITS, and also higher (by14.58%,95%CI, 11.84%-17.81%; by 1.94%,95%CI,1.25%-2.96%, respectively) than JE and SE in ETS. Conclusion: The DCNN can detected more EGC images in a shorter time than the endoscopists. It will become an effective tool to assist in the detection of EGC in the near future.
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.