ArticleNature medicine2026
Large-scale esophageal cancer screening through noncontrast computed tomography and artificial intelligence.
Article in Nature medicine, 2026. 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.
- The missing links in agentic AI autonomy.Nature medicine · 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
44 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absence of accurate, noninvasive, scalable screening tools keeps early esophageal cancer (EC) detection a global health challenge. Although noncontrast computed tomography (NC CT) is widely accessible, the esophagus is a hollow tubular structure prone to collapse and motion artifacts, making small early malignant lesions difficult to distinguish from normal tissue. Here we developed the Esophageal AI-Guided malignant Lesion Evaluation (EAGLE) model to detect precancerous lesions and cancer from chest NC CT, a task historically considered impossible. EAGLE was trained on 6,813 patients from two centers and validated across 12 centers in three countries involving 80,612 patients in opportunistic and population-based screening settings. For opportunistic screening on existing CT scans, multicenter external test cohorts (eight centers, n = 11,466) achieved 98.5% specificity, with 90.0% sensitivity for cancer and 52.5% for precancerous lesions; low-dose CT (LDCT) validation (two centers, n = 1,607) showed comparable performance, supporting EC screening through lung-cancer screening programs. Calibration in a real-world cohort (three centers, n = 35,402) reduced false positives by 72.7% while preserving sensitivity; prospective hospital validation (n = 17,446) achieved a 42.2% PPV, and real-world low-dose screening (n = 10,959) reached 99.94% specificity. EAGLE also detected precancerous lesions-in paired CT-endoscopy cohorts (two centers, n = 702), sensitivities were 65.0% for precancerous lesions and 78.4% for stage I EC at a higher-sensitivity operating point. Exploratory analyses of a prospectively enrolled cohort suggest that referring high-risk individuals for endoscopy could improve screening efficiency. In conclusion, EAGLE has the potential to serve as a scalable tool for early EC screening. Chictr.org.cn identifier: ChiCTR2300074806 .
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.