ArticleJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Usefulness of Automated Analysis System for Microvascular Blood Flow Rate Using Magnifying Endoscopy in Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study (With Video).
Article in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Usefulness of Automated Analysis System for Microvascular Blood Flow Rate Using Magnifying Endoscopy in Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study (With Video).Journal of gastroenterology and 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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimEarly gastric cancer (EGC) diagnosis after Helicobacter pylori eradication and differentiation from patchy redness (PR) remains challenging. We developed a novel automated analysis system for microvascular blood flow rate using magnifying endoscopy. This study evaluated its diagnostic performance in differentiating EGC from PR compared with endoscopists in a multicenter setting.
methodsWe analyzed 76 magnifying endoscopy videos, including 36 EGCs and 40 PRs recorded at our institution. Lesions were diagnosed as cancer (EGC) or noncancer (PR) by the analysis system, based on the cut-off value calculated from the validation data set. Additionally, 30 endoscopists (15 experts and 15 trainees) from three institutions, all skilled in magnifying endoscopy diagnosis, participated. We compared the diagnostic performance between the analysis system and endoscopists.
resultsDiagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were 84.2%, 86.1%, 82.5%, 81.6%, and 86.8%, respectively, for the analysis system, and 84.2%, 80.2%, 87.3%, 83.2%, and 84.9%, respectively, for the endoscopists. Sensitivity and NPV of the analysis system tended to be higher than those of endoscopists. Additionally, the accuracy of the analysis system was comparable to that of all endoscopists and tended to be superior to that of trainees (84.2% [95% CI: 74.0%-91.6%] vs. 81.7% [95% CI: 79.4%-83.8%], respectively).
conclusionsThe automated analysis system for microvascular blood flow rate showed diagnostic performance equivalent to or superior to that of endoscopists skilled in magnifying endoscopy, suggesting its utility as a new diagnostic modality for differentiating EGC and PR in 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.