Pathology as reference standard
Staging results are compared against postoperative surgical pathology, which is the appropriate anchor for evaluating imaging-based TNM assessment.
↳ Abstract; Methods §3.2; Results §4
Reliability concern: This paper was retracted on 2023-06-21. See notice: 10.1155/2023/9896178.
Abstract
In order to explore the diagnostic value of spiral CT and magnetic resonance imaging scanning in gastric cancer and precancerous lesions, the author selected 56 gastric cancer patients treated in a medical center (group) as the experimental subjects, and all patients underwent MRI, multislice spiral CT scan, and enhanced CT scan two weeks before surgery; at the same time, the gastric cancer staging results of patients were diagnosed according to surgical pathology. All patients were examined under the condition of knowledge and performed breath-holding exercise before examination. The status, location, and extent of tumor lesions were evaluated. In comparison of T staging of gastric cancer patients with magnetic resonance scanning imaging and postoperative pathological examination results, among them, T staging of 3 patients did not match the results of pathological examination, the accuracy rates of T staging on magnetic resonance scanning imaging were T1 = 94.7%, T2 = 87.6%, T3 = 91.2%, and T4 = 94.7%, and the total accuracy was 92.1%. Comparison of helical CT scan imaging and postoperative pathological examination results is as follows. Among them, T staging of 8 patients did not match the results of pathological examination, 3 patients were ulcerative, 5 were protuberance, the accuracy rates of T staging in spiral CT scan imaging were T1 = 90.8%, T2 = 82.2%, T3 = 76.9%, and T4 = 87.6%, and the total accuracy was 84.5%. The total accuracy rate of imaging N staging was 77.5%, and the total accuracy rate of spiral CT scanning imaging N staging was 80.8%. The accuracy rates of M0 and M1 staging in magnetic resonance imaging were 100.0% and 96.5%, respectively, and the accuracy rates of M0 and M1 staging in spiral CT scan imaging were 96.5% and 96.5%, respectively. The accuracy rate of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of gastric cancer N staging was 77.4%, and the reason for the low accuracy rate was mainly because the enhancement effect was not obvious due to insufficient enhancement. The accuracy rate of spiral CT in diagnosing N staging of gastric cancer was 80.9%, which was mainly due to the small diameter of the middle celiac artery lymph nodes. Magnetic resonance and spiral CT scans have high value in the early diagnosis and staging of gastric cancer.
Strengths · Limitations
Strengths
Reports T, N, and M
The results present accuracy summaries for T staging (with stage-wise accuracies), N staging, and M staging for both MRI and spiral CT.
↳ Abstract; Results §4.1–§4.3
Some protocol detail provided
The methods list scanner types and several acquisition parameters and describe multi-radiologist interpretation, which partially supports reproducibility.
↳ Methods §3.2
Limitations
Corrupted TNM criteria definitions
The diagnostic criteria define distant metastasis categories with implausible thresholds (e.g., M0 as “3 metastasis values”), which can invalidate the staging constructs used to compute accuracy.
↳ Methods §3.3
Scope mismatch on precancerous lesions
The title and conclusion repeatedly reference “precancerous lesions,” but the described cohort is 56 gastric cancer patients and the reported analyses are staging accuracies for gastric cancer.
↳ Title; Abstract; Methods §3.1; Conclusion §6
Off-topic and confusing context
The literature review includes extended discussion and citations about palatal and salivary/parotid tumors, diluting relevance to gastric cancer staging and weakening contextual grounding.
↳ Literature Review §2 (refs [10]–[13])
Withdrawn — shown for reference only
Nabu Commentary
The paper’s core deliverable is a set of MRI and spiral CT staging accuracy percentages compared to postoperative pathology (Results §4.1–§4.3). However, the methods define key TNM categories in a way that appears internally corrupted, particularly for M staging (Methods §3.3), making it unclear what construct those accuracy values actually measure. The manuscript also contains pervasive “[Journal]” template artifacts and a literature review that substantially drifts to unrelated tumor sites (Literature Review §2), which further undermines interpretability and positioning. Standard diagnostic-accuracy reporting elements such as uncertainty estimates and clearly checkable denominators are not presented in a way that allows straightforward verification from the text.
Dimension breakdown
Study Quality
Very Limited1.7/5.0
Contribution
1.9/5.0
The study’s comparison of MRI and spiral CT staging accuracy in 56 surgical patients is incremental and not clearly differentiated from prior work cited in the introduction. The title’s inclusion of “precancerous lesions” is not matched by the described cohort or analyses, reducing the effective contribution.
Title; Abstract; Methods §3.1; Introduction §1; Literature Review §2
"selected 56 gastric cancer patients"
Methodological Rigour
1.7/5.0
Although surgical pathology is used as the reference standard and imaging procedures are partially described, the diagnostic criteria include garbled/non-standard TNM definitions that can invalidate staging comparisons. Key diagnostic-accuracy reporting elements (e.g., uncertainty estimates, clear denominators/contingency tables in the narrative, blinding/reader adjudication details) are insufficiently specified.
Methods §3.2–§3.3; Results §4.1–§4.3
"M0 means 3 metastasis values"
Reporting
1.6/5.0
The manuscript follows a conventional section structure but contains pervasive “[Journal]” placeholder insertions and awkward/corrupted phrasing that disrupt interpretation. The title/body mismatch regarding “precancerous lesions” and confusing staging criteria language further reduce clarity.
Title; Abstract; Methods §3.2–§3.3; Results §4; Discussion §5; Conclusion §6
"magnetic resonance imaging [Journal]"
Positioning
1.4/5.0
Contextualisation is weakened by a literature review that substantially drifts to palatal and salivary/parotid tumor imaging, rather than focusing on gastric cancer staging evidence. The discussion provides limited benchmarking against relevant comparative literature or established reporting standards for diagnostic accuracy studies.
Literature Review §2 (refs [10]–[13]); Discussion §5
"MRI findings of 9 palatal tumors"
Lower confidence on Contribution — domain match limited.
Trust Signals
Concerns4 of 4 checks
Internal CoherenceConcern
The manuscript contains corrupted/implausible staging definitions and substantial scope/text inconsistencies that call into question whether the reported accuracy metrics correspond to valid TNM staging.
Research ConductConcern
The manuscript lacks standard clinical research governance disclosures for imaging plus surgical patients, including ethics/IRB approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure, and offers only unverifiable “upon request” data access.
Flags: 1 declared / 5 total
Reference IntegrityClean
All 20 cited references resolved to real publications via PubMed, Crossref, or OpenAlex.
Post-Publication RecordConcern
This paper was retracted on 2023-06-21. See notice: 10.1155/2023/9896178.
Last checked: 01 Jun 2026
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓PubPeer (coming soon)
Impact Potential
Minimal1.8/5.0
Relevance
2.3/5.0
Preoperative TNM staging is a recognised clinical need, and the paper targets radiology/surgical oncology workflow by comparing MRI and CT staging against pathology. However, the manuscript does not specify a concrete decision protocol or guideline context that would use these accuracy figures directly.
Introduction §1; Abstract; Results §4; Conclusion §6
"preoperative evaluation of gastric cancer"
Readiness
1.8/5.0
The work is an early-stage, single-centre diagnostic accuracy comparison with limited statistical reporting, which is not deployment-ready evidence. The conclusions about “high value” are not supported with uncertainty estimates or rigorous modality comparisons.
Results §4.1–§4.3; Conclusion §6
"have high value in the early diagnosis"
Generalizability
1.4/5.0
Generalisation is limited by the small, single-centre sample and minimal case-mix and external validation information. Imaging hardware is mentioned, but there is no multi-site replication or subgroup analysis to support broader transfer.
Methods §3.1–§3.2
"Fifty-six gastric cancer patients"
Trajectory
1.4/5.0
The paper does not clearly locate an evidence gap it fills, and the literature review includes off-topic citations that weaken a cumulative research narrative. As written, it reads more like a local report than a step toward practice-changing evidence.
Literature Review §2; Conclusion §6
Field feedback
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Evaluation Metadata
MethodologyMulti-model AI evaluationLearn more →
BasisFull text
Frameworkv5.0
Methodology typeDiagnostic Accuracy
AI-powered, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.