Real-World Application of Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Pathologic Gastric Atypia and Neoplastic Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Results of initial endoscopic biopsy of gastric lesions often differ from those of the final pathological diagnosis. We evaluated whether an artificial intelligence-based gastric lesion detection and diagnostic system, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device Computer Aided Diagnosis for Gastroscopy (ENAD CAD-G), could reduce this discrepancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected 24,948 endoscopic images of early gastric cancers (EGCs), dysplasia, and benign lesions from 9,892 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2011 and 2021. The diagnostic performance of ENAD CAD-G was evaluated using the following real-world datasets: patients referred from community clinics with initial biopsy results of atypia (n=154), participants who underwent endoscopic resection for neoplasms (Internal video set, n=140), and participants who underwent endoscopy for screening or suspicion of gastric neoplasm referred from community clinics (External video set, n=296). RESULTS: ENAD CAD-G classified the referred gastric lesions of atypia into EGC (accuracy, 82.47%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.46%-88.47%), dysplasia (88.31%; 83.24%-93.39%), and benign lesions (83.12%; 77.20%-89.03%). In the Internal video set, ENAD CAD-G identified dysplasia and EGC with diagnostic accuracies of 88.57% (95% CI, 83.30%-93.84%) and 91.43% (86.79%-96.07%), respectively, compared with an accuracy of 60.71% (52.62%-68.80%) for the initial biopsy results (P<0.001). In the External video set, ENAD CAD-G classified EGC, dysplasia, and benign lesions with diagnostic accuracies of 87.50% (83.73%-91.27%), 90.54% (87.21%-93.87%), and 88.85% (85.27%-92.44%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ENAD CAD-G is superior to initial biopsy for the detection and diagnosis of gastric lesions that require endoscopic resection. ENAD CAD-G can assist community endoscopists in identifying gastric lesions that require endoscopic resection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".