ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Divergent roles of endoscopic Kyoto classification and serological Li's scoring in immediate and long-term gastric cancer risk stratification: a 4-year longitudinal study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of gastric cancer (GC) is crucial for improving prognosis. This study aimed to address the paucity of longitudinal evidence by validating and comparing the long-term predictive efficacy of the serology-based Li's scoring system and the endoscopic Kyoto classification for GC risk stratification in a Chinese population.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center cohort study included 5801 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between April 2017 and December 2023. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both systems using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. A longitudinal analysis of 2836 patients with a median follow-up of 4.05 years was performed using Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier curves to assess long-term predictive value for GC development.
resultsCross-sectional evaluation revealed that the Kyoto classification outperformed Li's scoring system in gastric cancer discrimination, yielding a significantly higher AUC (0.898, 95% CI: 0.859-0.938) than Li's scoring system (0.760, 95% CI: 0.692-0.827), P = 0.011. These findings suggest that endoscopic-based assessment provides more precise initial risk stratification than serological scoring alone. The primary contribution of this study is the longitudinal analysis, which demonstrated that Li's scoring system more effectively identified individuals at high long-term risk; the high-risk group had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for developing GC compared to the low-risk group (HR = 4.27, 95% CI: 2.13-8.54, P < 0.001). The annual GC incidence was markedly higher in the high-risk group defined by Li's scoring system (2.29%) compared to that defined by the Kyoto classification (1.23%).
conclusionBoth Li's scoring system and the Kyoto classification are effective for gastric cancer risk assessment, yet they serve potentially complementary clinical roles. The Kyoto classification demonstrates significantly superior immediate discriminative power, while the serology-based Li's scoring system shows promising prognostic value for longitudinal risk stratification, suggesting its potential utility as a preliminary non-invasive triage tool. However, further prospective multicenter validation studies and formal cost-effectiveness evaluations are needed before an integrated screening strategy can be recommended for large-scale population implementation.
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.