ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2024
Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Minimally-Invasive Detection of Barrett's Esophagus and Barrett's Esophagus Related Dysplasia/Carcinoma by a Sponge on String Device
Application of the Microbiome and Microenvironment to Novel Non-Endoscopic Screening and Surveillance in Barrett's Esophagus
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review Article: Advances in the Diagnosis of Dysplasia in Barrett's Oesophagus.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Review
- Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: recent advances and next steps.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Review
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers for Barrett's Esophagus.Gastroenterology clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Discovery and Validation of Molecular Biomarkers for Differentiation of Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus from High-grade Dysplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Nonendoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Current Methods, Evidence, and Future Directions.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Strategies to prevent Barrett's esophagus associated esophageal adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Discovery of Methylated DNA Biomarkers for Potential Nonendoscopic Detection of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- New Approaches to Screening for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsEndoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection is invasive and expensive. Nonendoscopic BE/EAC detection tools are guideline-endorsed alternatives. We previously described a 5-methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel assayed on encapsulated sponge cell collection device (CCD) specimens. We aimed to train a new algorithm using a 3-MDM panel and test its performance in an independent cohort.
methodsAlgorithm training and test samples were from 2 prospective multicenter cohorts. All BE cases had esophageal intestinal metaplasia (with or without dysplasia/EAC); control subjects had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The CCD procedure was followed by endoscopy. From CCD cell lysates, DNA was extracted, bisulfite treated, and MDMs were blindly assayed. The algorithm was set and locked using cross-validated logistic regression (training set) and its performance was assessed in an independent test set.
resultsTraining (N = 352) and test (N = 125) set clinical characteristics were comparable. The final panel included 3 MDMs (NDRG4, VAV3, ZNF682). Overall sensitivity was 82% (95% CI, 68%-94%) at 90% (79%-98%) specificity and 88% (78%-94%) sensitivity at 84% (70%-93%) specificity in training and test sets, respectively. Sensitivity was 90% and 68% for all long- and short-segment BE, respectively. Sensitivity for BE with high-grade dysplasia and EAC was 100% in training and test sets. Overall sensitivity for nondysplastic BE was 82%. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for BE detection were 0.92 and 0.94 in the training and test sets, respectively.
conclusionsA locked 3-MDM panel algorithm for BE/EAC detection using a nonendoscopic CCD demonstrated excellent sensitivity for high-risk BE cases in independent validation samples. (Clinical trials.gov: NCT02560623, NCT03060642.).
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.