TRV-2026-1986Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Impact of AI-Assisted Endoscopy on Secondary Review and Referral Decisions in Gastric Cancer Screening: A Multicenter Real-World Study

Objectives Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopy may support gastric cancer screening, but its impact on structured secondary human review remains unclear. We evaluated secondary review modifications and referral decisions before and after AI implementation. Methods This retrospective multicenter study included 5013 screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy examinations performed before (n = 2021) and after (n = 2992) AI implementation. The primary outcome was secondary review modifications. Secondary outco…

Health · The Trace — both readings · certified 2026-10-20 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

AI-assisted endoscopy was associated with lower referral rates for further diagnostic evaluation in gastric cancer screening.

Current reading — problem

Secondary review modifications rose from 1.2% before AI to 3.7% after AI and persisted, particularly among nonexpert endoscopists, with no reference standard to verify them.

What this doesn’t fix

No external reference standard was available to verify secondary-review modifications or referral decisions, so the clinical validity of the changes and the appropriateness of referrals are not established.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1986, v1: “Impact of AI-Assisted Endoscopy on Secondary Review and Referral Decisions in Gastric Cancer Screening: A Multicenter Real-World Study.” Truvace, 2026-10-20. /record/TRV-2026-1986 (accessed at citation time). sha256 536ef1cb981831c4…

Calibration history

Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.

  1. Certifiedv1536ef1cb9818…

    Certified into the record

Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1986 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.