SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Artificial intelligence in gastric cancer: a systematic review of machine learning and deep learning applications.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global research hotspots and trends in the application of artificial intelligence in gastric cancer: a bibliometric analysis from 2005 to 2024.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Research Progress on Bioinspired Superhydrophobic Photothermal Anti-/Deicing Coatings.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development of a Clinicopathological Prognostic Model and Risk Classification to Predict Disease-Free Survival in Patients with Gastric Adenocarcinoma Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Curative Gastrectomy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- From pixels to precision: a narrative review of AI-driven 3D morphological analysis and digital twinning in alveolar cleft management.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for biomarker prediction in gastric cancer: from histopathology to multimodal integration.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Elucidating the dual regulation of apoptosis and migration by Ajugasterone C in AGS cells via the PI3K/AKT pathway.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastric cancer research: a bibliometric and visualized analysis from 1993 to 2026.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Developing and Interpreting a Machine Learning Model for Identifying Liver Metastasis in Gastric Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
- Predicting cancer treatment outcomes using machine learning enabled clinical decision support systems.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) remains a major global health concern, ranking as the fifth most prevalent malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Although early detection can increase the 5-year survival rate of early gastric cancer (EGC) to over 90%, more than 80% of cases are diagnosed at advanced stages due to subtle clinical symptoms and diagnostic challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has shown great promise in addressing these limitations.
objectivesThis systematic review aims to evaluate the performance, applications, and limitations of ML and DL models in GC management, with a focus on their use in detection, diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis prediction across diverse clinical imaging and data modalities.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between 2004 and May 2025. Eligible studies applied ML or DL algorithms for diagnostic or prognostic tasks in GC using data from endoscopy, computed tomography (CT), pathology, or multi-modal sources. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment.
resultsA total of 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. DL models, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), demonstrated strong performance in EGC detection, with reported sensitivities up to 95.3% and Area Under the Curve (AUCs) as high as 0.981, often exceeding expert endoscopists. CT-based radiomics and DL models achieved AUCs ranging from 0.825 to 0.972 for tumor staging and metastasis prediction. Pathology-based models reported accuracies up to 100% for EGC detection and AUCs up to 0.92 for predicting treatment response. Cross-modality approaches combining radiomics and pathomics achieved AUCs up to 0.951. Key challenges included algorithmic bias, limited dataset diversity, interpretability issues, and barriers to clinical integration.
conclusionML and DL models have demonstrated substantial potential to improve early detection, diagnostic accuracy, and individualized treatment in GC. To advance clinical adoption, future research should prioritize the development of large, diverse datasets, implement explainable AI frameworks, and conduct prospective clinical trials. These efforts will be essential for integrating AI into precision oncology and addressing the increasing global burden of gastric cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40932499What 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.