ArticleScientific reports2026
Towards deep-learning based detection and quantification of intestinal metaplasia on digitized gastric biopsies: a multi-expert comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic Diagnosis of Chronic Atrophic Gastritis and Early Gastric Cancer: From Basics to Advanced Imaging.Cancers · 2026Review
- Basal gland localization and focal distribution of OLFM4-expressing cells in increasing severity of gastric intestinal metaplasia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Towards deep-learning based detection and quantification of intestinal metaplasia on digitized gastric biopsies: a multi-expert comparative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current gastric cancer (GCa) risk systems are prone to errors since they evaluate a visual estimation of intestinal metaplasia percentages in histopathology images of gastric mucosa to assign a risk. This study presents an automated method to detect and quantify intestinal metaplasia using deep convolutional neural networks as well as a comparative analysis with visual estimations of three pathologists. Gastric samples were collected from two different cohorts: 149 asymptomatic volunteers from a region with a high prevalence of GCa in Colombia and 56 patients from a tertiary hospital. Deep learning models were trained to classify intestinal metaplasia, and predictions were used to estimate a percentage of intestinal metaplasia and to assign an adapted OLGIM stage. Atrophy was not assessed because of the limited reproducibility among pathologists. Results were compared with independent blinded metaplastic assessments performed by three graduated pathologists. The best-performing deep learning architecture classified intestinal metaplasia with F1-Score of [Formula: see text] and AUC of [Formula: see text]. Among pathologists, inter-observer agreement by a Fleiss's Kappa score ranged from 0.20 to 0.48. In comparison, agreement between the pathologists and the best-performing model ranged from 0.12 to 0.35. Deep learning models show potential to reliably detect and quantify the percentage of intestinal metaplasia, achieving high classification performance. In practice, visual estimation is still the only available method, yet it is marked by considerable inter-observer variability. Deep learning models provide consistent estimates that could help reduce this subjectivity in risk stratification.
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.