ArticleClinical endoscopy2025
Enhancing lymph node diagnosis: integrating deep learning with endoscopic ultrasonography: a retrospective study in China.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node diagnosis: perspective on an evolving frontier.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLymphadenopathy presents diagnostic challenges, particularly for the mediastinal and intra-abdominal lymph nodes (LNs). Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has emerged as a tool for LN detection; however, its accuracy varies. To enhance the diagnostic performance and minimize medical costs, assisting LN assessment using EUS is necessary. Machine learning (ML) offers potential for medical image analysis. This study aimed to develop an ML model for classifying mediastinal and intra-abdominal LNs using gastrointestinal EUS.
methodsEUS images of mediastinal and intra-abdominal LNs were randomly split into training and validation datasets. U-Net was selected for LN segmentation, and six deep-learning architectures were combined with the k-nearest-neighbor algorithm for LN classification. Physicians, comprising one expert group and one trainee group, reviewed the validation dataset and made individual diagnoses. A logistic regression model was generated based on LN features. We compared the diagnostic yields of ML, expert and trainee groups, logistic regression analysis, and a combination of the various methods mentioned above for diagnosing LNs.
resultsIn total, 93 patients were enrolled, providing 630 images. The ResNet-50+logistic regression analysis+expert group achieved the best F1 score and sensitivity of 0.89 and 100.0%, respectively. Paired comparisons revealed that the combination outperformed both experts and trainees in terms of the area under the curve (p<0.01).
conclusionsML assists in predicting the mediastinal and intra-abdominal LNs based on gastrointestinal EUS images, particularly when combined with expert expertise and logistic regression models.
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.