ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Validation of multiple deep learning models for colorectal tumor differentiation with endoscopic ultrasound images: a dual-center study.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Liquid Biopsy in Colorectal Cancer: Future Perspectives Through the Lens of Artificial Intelligence-A Comprehensive Review of Novel Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Differentiating adenomas and cancers in colorectal lesions is essential for reducing morbidity and mortality associated with CRC. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is crucial in the diagnosis of CRC, and artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising approach for identifying colorectal lesions without the need for histopathological confirmation. The objective of this study was to validate the efficacy of EUS combined with AI for the diagnosis of colorectal adenoma and cancer and to compare it with that of conventional endoscopic diagnosis. Methods: This retrospective study included 554 patients (167 with CRC, 136 with adenomas, and 251 controls) from two independent centers. The dataset was randomly divided into training and test sets in a 2:1 ratio (360 for the training dataset; 194 for the testing dataset). A model was developed using a "feature extractor + multilayer perceptron (MLP) classifier" framework, incorporating Residual Network 50 (ResNet50), EfficientNet-B0, Visual Geometry Group 11_BN (VGG_11_BN), and Vision Transformer (ViT) as feature extractors. Four AI systems were trained and validated, and the model with the highest F1 scores was subsequently compared to four endoscopists using the test dataset, and interobserver agreement measured by Fleiss' kappa. Results: The accuracies for three-category classification (CRC, adenoma and controls) were 70.62% for ResNet50, 68.56% for EfficientNet-B0, 63.4% for ViT, and 70.10% for VGG_11_BN. ResNet50 achieved the highest F1 scores (70.37%) and diagnostic accuracy and was selected for comparison with endoscopists. For CRC diagnosis, ResNet50 outperformed endoscopists with an accuracy of 80.93%, sensitivity of 72.88%, and specificity of 84.44%, which were significantly higher than those of all endoscopists (P<0.05). For adenoma diagnosis, ResNet50 had a sensitivity of 47.92%, which was significantly higher than that of nonexpert endoscopists (P<0.05). The interobserver agreement was fair among AI systems (Fleiss' κ =0.674) and among experts (Fleiss' κ =0.557) and was slight among nonexperts (Fleiss' κ =0.284). Conclusions: EUS-AI has high diagnostic accuracy for CRC and adenoma as compared to non-expert endoscopists. ResNet50 is a promising tool for enhancing diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice using EUS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.