ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Evaluation of gastric cancer using artificial intelligence iterative reconstruction on abdominal CT: image quality and diagnostic accuracy.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical performance of a novel deep-learning based image reconstruction algorithm, namely artificial intelligence iterative reconstruction (AIIR), for assessing gastric cancer (GC) on CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively enrolled 132 GC patients without history of treatment, all of whom subsequently underwent surgical resection or staging laparoscopy. All patients underwent preoperative abdominal contrast-enhanced CT examinations, and images were reconstructed with both hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) and AIIR. Qualitative metrics, including conspicuity of tumor margin and enhancement pattern, were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (1: poor; 5: excellent). Quantitative image quality was evaluated by calculating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of GC. The diagnostic performance in detecting gastric serosal invasion was characterized using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with the operative reference standard.
resultsThe mean effective dose for CT examination was 15.3 ± 4.5 mSv. Compared to HIR, AIIR showed superior conspicuity of tumor margin (4.51 ± 0.81 vs. 3.90 ± 0.89, p < 0.001) and enhancement pattern (4.48 ± 0.76 vs. 3.86 ± 0.84, p < 0.001). The CNR of GC was significantly higher on AIIR than HIR in both arterial and portal venous phases (both p < 0.001). Accordingly, AIIR achieved a significantly higher area under the ROC curve than HIR in detecting gastric serosal invasion [0.89 (95%CI: 0.83-0.94) vs. 0.78 (95%CI: 0.70-0.85), p< 0.001].
conclusionCompared to HIR, AIIR yields better image quality and was associated with better diagnostic performance for the assessment of gastric serosal invasion on routine abdominal CT, suggesting its potential clinical value in the preoperative evaluation of GC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42606594What 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.