Trial reportEndoscopy2026
Prospective clinical validation of a novel artificial intelligence system for real-time detection of solid pancreatic masses during endoscopic ultrasonography.
Trial report in Endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07381192 (An Artificial Intelligence System for Multimodal, Multi-class Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions Based on Endoscopic Ultrasound), which is not on this 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.
An Artificial Intelligence System for Multimodal, Multi-class Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions Based on Endoscopic Ultrasound
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Reconsidering relevance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in pancreatic cancer treatment: Future perspectives on artificial intelligence.World journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Endoscopic Ultrasonography: From Image-Based Diagnosis to Cytopathology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in oncology: linking biological discovery to clinical utility.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Clinical Application Progress of Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cancer: From Diagnosis to Immunotherapy.Oncology research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the most sensitive modality for accurately establishing a tissue diagnosis in patients with solid pancreatic masses. However, small lesions can be challenging to detect, particularly for less experienced endosonographers. Therefore, outcomes of EUS are operator dependent. We validated the performance of novel artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced EUS for detection of solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: In this single-center, prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study, high-risk patients aged ≥18 years referred for pancreatic cancer screening or with suspected (solid and cystic) pancreatic lesions owing to symptoms, radiological, or laboratory findings were evaluated in real time using AI-EUS software. The model included 32 713 EUS frames (training/testing phases) of normal, solid, and >10-mm cystic pancreatic lesions from 202 patients. Clinical validation was conducted prospectively when EUS findings were evaluated concurrently in real time by two independent expert examiners, one using conventional EUS and another with AI-EUS, both blinded to the alternative assessments. The primary outcome was detection of solid pancreatic masses. Results: 308 patients were evaluated (January–July 2024). AI-EUS performance was not significantly different to that of conventional EUS performed by experts (97.1% vs. 100%; risk difference 2.9%, 95%CI –1.2 to 6.8; P = 0.25). Final pathology of 105 pancreatic solid masses revealed neoplasia in 93 (88.6%) and benign lesions in 12 (11.4%). Conclusion: The performance of AI-EUS was not significantly different to that of experienced endosonographers for detection and segmentation of solid pancreatic masses. By standardizing performance, AI-EUS may have the potential to optimize clinical outcomes in pancreatic cancer.
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.