ArticleDEN open2026
Diagnostic Concordance Using Japan Narrow-band Imaging Expert Team Classification for Diagnosing Colorectal Neoplasms: A Web-based Diagnostic Concordance Study.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The Japan Narrow-band Imaging Expert Team (JNET) classification is widely used for magnified endoscopic diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms. However, its diagnostic concordance, particularly among the core members who contributed to its development, has not been sufficiently evaluated. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the diagnostic concordance of the JNET classification among JNET core members using a web-based image interpretation test. Methods: A total of 27 JNET core members performed a web-based static image reading test in two separate sessions. Each image was classified according to the JNET criteria, and the diagnostic concordance rate (DCR) was analyzed. Cases were categorized as having high (≥80% consensus), moderate (70%-79% consensus), or low (<70% consensus) agreement. The impact of secondary findings on diagnostic classification was explored for the secondary analysis. Results: Agreement rates were significantly higher for sessile serrated lesions/hyperplastic polyps (SSL/HP) (>85%) than for neoplastic lesions. In the first session, the DCR for neoplastic lesions was substantially lower, with 54% for low-grade intramucosal neoplasia, 63% for high-grade intramucosal neoplasia/T1a, and 52% for T1b. The classification of T1b lesions showed notable variability. Further, while secondary findings influenced classification, this remained an exploratory analysis rather than a primary outcome. Conclusions: While the JNET classification demonstrated high diagnostic concordance for SSL/HP, variability remained in neoplastic lesions, particularly in T1b cancer. These findings highlight the need for further refinement of the classification system to improve its diagnostic concordance 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.