Trial reportEndoscopy2026
Generative chromoendoscopy for gastric neoplasms: a multicenter prospective study.
Trial report in Endoscopy, 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.
- How Does Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopy Impact Upper Gastrointestinal Screening?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
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
Background: Generative indigo carmine chromoendoscopy (generative chromoendoscopy), produced using deep learning-based synthetic image transformation, is a novel image-enhanced endoscopic approach, whose clinical feasibility has not been validated. This proof-of-concept study evaluated whether generative chromoendoscopy improves the visibility of gastric neoplasms compared with conventional white-light imaging (WLI) and real chromoendoscopy. Methods: This prospective multicenter study was conducted at three Japanese institutions between January and August 2025. A deep neural network-based program converted WLI into generative chromoendoscopy images. Patients with early gastric cancer or adenoma sequentially underwent endoscopy using WLI, generative chromoendoscopy, and real chromoendoscopy. During live endoscopy, two endoscopists independently assessed lesion visibility using a 7-point Likert-type scale (-3 to +3). The primary end point was visibility of gastric neoplasms with generative chromoendoscopy relative to WLI, with comparison to real chromoendoscopy. Secondary end points included clinicopathologic factors associated with improved visibility. Results: 60 patients were included. Mean (SD) visibility scores were 0.67 (0.93) for generative chromoendoscopy and 0.51 (1.00) for real chromoendoscopy. The mean difference was 0.16 (95%CI 0.01 to 0.30). Differentiated-type histology (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95%CI 1.03 to 4.62), current Conclusions: Generative chromoendoscopy was feasible during live endoscopic procedures. It improved visibility of pre-identified gastric neoplasms compared with WLI and achieved visibility comparable to real chromoendoscopy.
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.