Comparison of Chromoendoscopy and Conventional Endoscopy in the Detection of Premalignant Gastric Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and localization of intestinal metaplasia and early gastric cancer is problematic because of the lack of any telltale gross endoscopic signs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of chromoendoscopy with conventional endoscopy for the detection of gastric premalignant lesions (intestinal metaplasia). METHOD: Thirty-three patients in whom previous routine endoscopic biopsies showed intestinal metaplasia were enrolled in a prospective study. Each patient underwent a two-step endoscopy procedure: conventional endoscopy and chromoendoscopy using methylene blue. Biopsies were taken during each step and were studied by an expert pathologist. Presence of intestinal metaplasia was considered a positive result. RESULTS: Considering the presence of intestinal metaplasia anywhere in the stomach as a positive result, 13 patients were diagnosed with intestinal metaplasia using both endoscopic methods, while eight patients had positive results using chromoendoscopy without any metaplastic changes detected with the conventional method (P=0.003). One patient showed positive biopsies with the conventional method while the pathology report showed no positive biopsies using the chromoendoscopy method. The number of positive biopsies from the antrum, body and fundus were 18, 15 and seven, respectively, using chromoendoscopy, and 10, four and two, respectively, from the same sites using conventional endoscopy. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that chromoendoscopy is superior to conventional endoscopy for the detection of metaplastic changes and its use can be suggested for the screening of early malignancies of the stomach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".