ReviewClinical endoscopy2025
Recent advancement in endoscopic diagnosis for risk stratification of gastric cancer.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: what detection rates cannot tell us.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Real-World Evidence for Expanding the Criteria for Endoscopic Resection in Submucosal Gastric Cancer: The Role of Invasion Width.Journal of gastric cancer · 2026Article
- Autoimmune gastritis: a comprehensive review of pathophysiology, risk stratification, and management.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approximately 90% of cases of gastric cancer (GC) are caused by Helicobacter pylori infection, and screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy is effective for secondary prevention of GC. Endoscopic findings of the stomach due to H. pylori infection vary widely, and the risk of GC varies according to each finding. GC risk is evaluated by combining endoscopic and histopathological findings. In the operative link on gastritis assessment and operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia assessment staging, GC risk is determined by histopathological evaluation. In the endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia, Kyoto classification, and modified Kyoto classification, the risk is considered based on endoscopic findings. However, evaluating endoscopic findings is challenging because the evaluation varies depending on the skill of the endoscopist. Similarly, histopathological findings can be assessed differently by different pathologists. Histopathological evaluation by biopsy carries a risk of bleeding; thus, simpler and less-invasive risk stratification methods are desirable. Artificial intelligence for risk stratification, which has the potential for improved accuracy and consistency, has been developed for endoscopic and histopathological evaluations. Appropriate GC risk stratification would benefit the economy and patients, and further evaluation of surveillance intervals tailored to individual risks is warranted.
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.