ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Artificial intelligence in endoscopic prediction of submucosal invasion in gastric neoplasms: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of Submucosal (SM) invasion in gastric neoplasms is vital for curative endoscopic management, yet conventional endoscopy remains moderately accurate and operator dependent. Whether AI can deliver reliable, generalizable depth prediction is unknown.
aimThis investigation establishes the diagnostic capability of AI-driven endoscopic systems for identifying SM invasion.
methodsA PRISMA-DTA systematic review and meta-analysis identified studies that used machine-learning or deep-learning models applied to endoscopic imaging with histopathology as the reference standard. Validation-set 2 × 2 data were pooled using hierarchical models to estimate sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, and heterogeneity was assessed through subgroup analyses.
resultsEight studies were included in the systematic review; seven studies provided sufficient data (including ten cohorts for the meta-analysis). AI systems demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.81) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.87). Discriminatory ability was high (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.90), providing a conservative, transportable estimate of performance based on validation cohorts. Heterogeneity was substantial. Externally validated models showed lower sensitivity than internally validated models (0.72 vs. 0.79; p < 0.001), revealing overfitting. Korean cohorts demonstrated higher specificity than studies from other regions (0.87 vs. 0.79; p < 0.001). Fagan's analysis showed that a positive AI result increased post-test probability from 25% to 61%, while a negative result reduced it to 9%.
conclusionsAI-assisted endoscopic assessment establishes a high-accuracy framework for identifying SM invasion and opens the door to more consistent treatment selection in early gastric cancer. International external validation and unified invasion definitions remain essential for dependable clinical use.
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.