ArticleBMC cancer2025
Application of deep learning models in gastric cancer pathology image analysis: a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Pathology and the AI-Based Quantification of the Tumor Microenvironment in Gastrointestinal Cancer: From Tumor Budding and Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes to Tertiary Lymphoid Structures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Tumor Budding in Gastric Carcinoma: Beyond Counting Cells at the Invasive Front-A Review of Current Evidence and Biological Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Overview of Gastric Cancer Immunohistochemistry: Key Biomarkers, Advanced Detection Methods, and Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Transforming Gastric Biopsy Diagnostics: Integrating Omics Technologies and Artificial Intelligence.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges Related to HER2 Heterogeneity in Gastric Cancer: Bridging Molecular Pathology and Clinical Decision-Making.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnosis and prognosis stratification of gastric cancer (GC) are crucial for effective treatment. However, traditional histopathological image analysis relies on the subjective judgment of pathologists, which is time-consuming and prone to errors. The emergence of deep learning (DL) models provides new ways to automate and improve the analysis of GC pathology images. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current application, challenges, and future directions of DL in GC pathology image analysis.
methodsThe study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and searched four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore (as of June 19, 2025).
resultsThe initial search identified 520 articles, and 22 studies that met the inclusion criteria were finally included. The results show that DL models have performed excellently in GC detection, histological classification, and prognosis prediction. Some models even reached an accuracy of over 95% in GC detection. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are the most commonly used DL models. However, current studies still have limitations, such as limited dataset size, lack of external validation, and insufficient data diversity. The applicability to different types and stages of GC is also unclear.
conclusionsFuture research must build larger, more diverse, and more representative datasets. These should cover a wider range of GC types and stages, and undergo rigorous clinical validation. This will help fully realize the potential of DL in GC pathology image analysis and ultimately improve clinical practice.
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.