SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Accuracy of AI-based raman spectroscopy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2026. 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.
- Gastric Mucosa Cancer Risk: The Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment Staging System.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric cancer (GC) remains a significant global health challenge with high mortality rates, often due to late-stage diagnosis. We hypothesize that Raman spectroscopy (RS) (a modern minimally invasive technique that uses light to analyze the molecular composition of tissue, generating a unique "fingerprint" that reveals biochemical details, distinguishing between normal and diseased tissues.) when combined with Machine learning (ML) would provide accurate and expedite approach of detecting GC. We aim to meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of ML-enhanced RS in differentiating GC component from normal tissue. This study was conducted following PRISMA-DTA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, VHL, and Google Scholar up to the end of February 2025. with an updated search conducted on 14 July 2025. We included any peer-reviewed manuscript that assessed ML-based RS technique for detecting GC components against normal control during endoscopy and reported sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency table for assessing basic diagnostic metrics such as the sensitivity and specificity were included. Methodological quality of studies deemed eligible was assessed using QUADAS-2 risk of bias tool. Data on true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives were extracted to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using R software. Heterogeneity was assessed with I
Indexed as
Identifiers
41491127What 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.