ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Influence of sex differences among endoscopists in gastric cancer and precancerous condition detection rate during EGD in the artificial intelligence era: a retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
aimsThis study investigated whether endoscopist sex is associated with the detection of gastric precancerous conditions and neoplasia during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and whether these associations differ with or without artificial intelligence (AI) assistance.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center study of patients who underwent EGD with or without AI assistance between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021. The precancerous condition detection rate (PCR) and gastric neoplasia detection rate (GNR) were compared between male endoscopists (MEs) and female endoscopists (FEs) using multivariable logistic regression models, with sensitivity analyses performed to assess robustness.
resultsA total of 15,536 patients were included: 13,074 (84.2%) examined by 31 MEs and 2462 (15.8%) by 13 FEs. Among these, 6579 (42.3%) procedures were performed with AI and 8957 (57.7%) without. Overall, FEs were related to higher GNR (2.80% vs. 1.98%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.79, p = 0.023), PCR (5.56% vs. 3.50%; aOR 1.63, 95%CI 1.33-1.98 p < 0.001), and dysplasia detection rate (DDR, 1.50% vs.0.78%; aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12-2.45, p = 0.009) compared with MEs. In subgroup analyses, detection rates were comparable between FEs and MEs without AI assistance, whereas FEs achieved significantly higher GNR, PCR, and DDR when AI was applied. Notably, AI assistance markedly improved detection performance among FEs but not among MEs.
conclusionFemale endoscopists demonstrated higher detection rates of gastric cancer and precancerous conditions, and dysplasia than male endoscopists in this cohort. AI assistance was associated with improved detection performance, with a larger relative improvement observed among FEs. Because key EGD process-quality metrics (e.g., inspection time and biopsy intensity) were unavailable and AI use was not randomized, these findings should be interpreted as associations and warrant multi-center confirmation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41731139What 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.