Deep learning model for diagnosing gastric mucosal lesions using endoscopic images: development, validation, and method comparison
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 21, 2025

Author Spotlight: Advancing Early Detection and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Tumors
Published on: February 16, 2024
Joon Yeul Nam1, Hyung Jin Chung2, Kyu Sung Choi3
1Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Background And Aims:
Endoscopic differential diagnoses of gastric mucosal lesions (benign gastric ulcer, early gastric cancer [EGC], and advanced gastric cancer) remain challenging. We aimed to develop and validate convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence (AI) models: lesion detection, differential diagnosis (AI-DDx), and invasion depth (AI-ID; pT1a vs pT1b among EGC) models.
Methods:
This study included 1366 consecutive patients with gastric mucosal lesions from 2 referral centers in Korea. One representative endoscopic image from each patient was used. Histologic diagnoses were set as the criterion standard. Performance of the AI-DDx (training/internal/external validation set, 1009/112/245) and AI-ID (training/internal/external validation set, 620/68/155) was compared with visual diagnoses by independent endoscopists (stratified by novice [<1 year of experience], intermediate [2-3 years of experience], and expert [>5 years of experience]) and EUS results, respectively.
Results:
The AI-DDx showed good diagnostic performance for both internal (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] = .86) and external validation (AUROC = .86). The performance of the AI-DDx was better than that of novice (AUROC = .82, P = .01) and intermediate endoscopists (AUROC = .84, P = .02) but was comparable with experts (AUROC = .89, P = .12) in the external validation set. The AI-ID showed a fair performance in both internal (AUROC = .78) and external validation sets (AUROC = .73), which were significantly better than EUS results performed by experts (internal validation, AUROC = .62; external validation, AUROC = .56; both P < .001).
Conclusions:
The AI-DDx was comparable with experts and outperformed novice and intermediate endoscopists for the differential diagnosis of gastric mucosal lesions. The AI-ID performed better than EUS for evaluation of invasion depth.
Related Concept Videos
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:

