Back

GutCore: An Endoscopy Foundation Model for Whole-Case Gastric Cancer Analysis

Kim, S.; Yoo, H.; Yoo, S.-K.; Lee, J.; Min, Y. W.; Lee, H.

2026-07-02 gastroenterology
10.64898/2026.07.01.26356993 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and Aims: Endoscopic artificial intelligence is commonly validated on selected single images, whereas gastric cancer interpretation requires integrating whole examinations. We developed GutCore and evaluated whether whole-case endoscopic images could be used for patient-level assessment of gastric cancer depth, biomarkers, and prognosis. Methods: GutCore was pretrained on 5.6 million de-identified endoscopic images from more than ten hospitals. We compared it with five general, medical, and endoscopy-specific foundation models using open image-level datasets and an internal tertiary-center cohort of 11,035 de-identified endoscopic examinations (2019-2023): 8,049 with early or advanced gastric cancer and 2,986 with benign gastritis or intestinal metaplasia. All examination images were aggregated for patient-level assessment of cancer status, invasion depth, molecular biomarkers, and overall survival. Results: Aggregating all stored images from each examination enabled patient-level gastric cancer assessment without selecting representative frames. GutCore achieved AUCs of 0.995 for cancer detection, 0.960 for muscularis propria invasion, and 0.804 for SM2-or-deeper invasion. Prediction of tissue-defined biomarker status was strongest for Epstein-Barr virus status and MLH1 loss (AUC, 0.831 and 0.854), with lower HER2 performance (AUC, 0.673). In the held-out advanced gastric cancer test set, GutCore-derived risk groups showed marked survival separation (log-rank P < .0001; high-risk vs low-risk hazard ratio, 13.18; 95% CI, 6.06-28.66), with stratification persisting within pathological stage II and III disease. External frame-level benchmarks showed strong performance for anatomical landmark recognition, disease grading, and segmentation. Conclusions: GutCore supported whole-case patient-level gastric cancer assessment using routinely stored endoscopic images. Further validation in independent clinical cohorts is needed to establish generalizability and clinical utility.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Gut
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
2
Nature Biomedical Engineering
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
3
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
4
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.1%
5
American Journal of Gastroenterology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
6
Gastroenterology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.0%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
10
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.4%
11
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.4%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.2%
13
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.7%
14
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.6%
15
Med
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
16
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
19
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
21
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
22
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
23
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
24
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.0%
25
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
The American Journal of Pathology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
29
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.8%
30
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%