AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a new computed virtual chromoendoscopy (CVC) device (M i-scan) in the diagnosis of gastric neoplasia. METHODS: Patients with superficial lesions no larger than 1.0 cm found during high definition endoscopy were included. Those with advanced or obviously protruded or depressed lesions, lesions larger than 1.0 cm and/or lesions which were not amenable to observation by zoom function were excluded. The endoscopist was required to give the real-time descriptions of surface pit patterns of the lesions, based on surface pattern classification of enhanced magnification endoscopy. According to previous reports, types Ⅰ-Ⅲ represent nonneoplastic lesions, and types Ⅳ-Ⅴ represent neoplastic lesions. Diagnosis with M i-scan and biopsy was performed before histopathological diagnosis. Magnified images of gastric lesions with and without enhancement were collected for further analysis. The diagnostic yield of real-time M i-scan and effects on magnification image quality by tone enhancement (TE), surface enhancement (SE) and color enhancement (CE) were calculated. The selected images were sent to another endoscopist. The endoscopist rated the image quality of each lesion at 3 levels. Ratings of image quality were based on visualization of pit pattern, vessel and demarcation line. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three patients were recruited. Five patients were excluded for advanced gastric lesions, 1 patient was excluded for poor preparation and 2 patients were excluded for superficial lesions larger than 1.0 cm; 132 patients were excluded for no lesions found by high definition endoscopy. In the end, 43 patients with 43 lesions were included. Histopathology revealed 10 inflammation, 14 atrophy, 10 metaplasia, 1 low grade dysplasia (LGD), 5 high grade dysplasia (HGD) and 3 cancers. For 7 lesions classified into type Ⅰ, histopathology revealed 6 atrophy and 1 metaplasia; for 10 lesions classified into type Ⅱ, histopathology revealed 2 inflammation, 7 atrophy and 1 metaplasia; for 10 lesions classified into type Ⅲ, histopathology revealed 1 inflammation, 8 metaplasia and 1 LGD; for 9 lesions classified into type Ⅳ, histopathology revealed 4 inflammation, 1 atrophy and 4 HGD; for 7 lesions classified into type Ⅴ, histopathology revealed 3 inflammation, 1 HGD and 3 cancers. A total of 172 still images, including 43 images by white light (MWL) and 129 images by M i-scan (43 with TE, 43 with SE and 43 with CE), were selected and sent to the endoscopist who did the analysis. General image quality of M i-scan with TE and SE was significantly better than that of MWL (TE, 4.55 ± 1.07; SE, 4.30 ± 1.02; MWL, 3.25 ± 0.99; P < 0.001). Visualization of pit pattern was significantly improved by M i-scan with SE (1.93 ± 0.25 vs 1.50 ± 0.50, P < 0.001). Microvessel visualization was significantly improved by M i-scan with TE (1.23 ± 0.78 vs 0.76 ± 0.73, P < 0.001). Demarcation line visualization was improved by M i-scan with both TE and SE (TE, 1.75 ± 0.52; SE, 1.56 ± 0.59; MWL, 0.98 ± 0.44; P < 0.001). M i-scan with CE did not show any significant improvements of image quality in general or in the 3 key parameters. Although M i-scan with TE and SE slightly increased the diagnostic yield of MWL, there was no significant difference (P > 0.1). CONCLUSION: Although digital enhancement improves the image quality of magnification endoscopy, its value in improving the diagnostic yield seems to be limited. AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a new computed virtual chromoendoscopy (CVC) device (Mi-scan) in the diagnosis of gastric neoplasia. METHODS: Patients with superficial lesions no larger than 1.0 cm found during high definition endoscopy were included. Those with advanced orarently protruded or depressed lesions, lesions more than 1.0 cm and / or lesions which were not amenable to observation by zoom function were excluded. The endoscopist was required to give the real-time descriptions of surface pit patterns of the lesions, based on Surface pattern classification of enhanced magnification endoscopy. According to previous reports, types I-III represent nonneoplastic lesions, and types IV-V represent neoplastic lesions. Diagnosis with M i-scan and biopsy was performed before histopathological diagnosis. Magnified images of gastric lesions with and without enhancement were collected for further analysis. The diagnostic yield of real-time M i-scan and effects on magnification The selected images were sent to another endoscopist. The endoscopist rated the image quality of each lesion at 3 levels. Ratings of image quality were based on visualization of pit pattern, vessel and demarcation line. RESULTS: One patient and eighty-three patients were recruited. Five patients were excluded for advanced gastric lesions, 1 patient was excluded for poor preparation and 2 patients were excluded for superficial lesions larger than Histopathology revealed 10 inflammation, 14 atrophy, 10 metaplasia, 1 low grade dysplasia (LGD), 5 high grade For 7 lesions classified into type I, histopathology revealed 6 atrophy and 1 metaplasia; for 10 lesions classified into type II, histopathology revealed 2 inflammatiofor 9 lesions classified into type IV, histopathology revealed 4 inflammation, 1 atrophy and 4 HGD; for 7 lesions classified into type III, histopathology revealed 1 inflammation, 8 metaplasia and 1 LGD; for 7 lesions classified into type III, histopathology revealed 1 inflammation, 8 metaplasia and 1 LGD; A total of 172 still images, including 43 images by white light (MWL) and 129 images by M i-scan (43 with TE, 43 with SE and 43 with CE), were selected and sent to the endoscopist who did the analysis. General image quality of M i-scan with TE and SE was significantly better than that of MWL (TE, 4.55 ± 1.07; SE, 4.30 ± 1.02; MWL, 3.25 ± 0.99; P <0.001). Visualization of pit pattern was significantly improved by M i-scan with SE (1.93 ± 0.25 vs 1.50 ± 0.50, P <0.001). Microvessel visualization was significantly improved by M i- ± 0.78 vs 0.76 ± 0.73, P <0.001). Demarcation line visualization was improved by M i-scan with both M i-scan with CE did not show any significant improvements in image quality in general or in the 3 key parameters (TE, 1.75 ± 0.52; SE, 1.56 ± 0.59; MWL, 0.98 ± 0.44; Although M i-scan with TE and SE slightly increased the diagnostic yield of MWL, there was no significant difference (P> 0.1). CONCLUSION: Although digital enhancement improves the image quality of magnification endoscopy, its value in improving the diagnostic yield to be limited.