ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2022
Survey on the perceptions of UK gastroenterologists and endoscopists to artificial intelligence.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benchmarking Large Language Models in Acute-on-Chronic Pancreatitis: An Exploratory Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Training future endoscopists: gastroenterology fellows' perspectives and hands-on exposure to artificial intelligence for polyp detection in the United States.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2026Article
- Ethical and Legal Implications of Implementing AI in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
- A novel cloud-based artificial intelligence for real-time detection of colorectal neoplasia - a randomized controlled trial (EAGLE).NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology Training (2005-2025): Trends, Tools, and Challenges.Cureus · 2025Review
- Survey on the perceptions of Asian endoscopists to artificial intelligence.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Among Gastroenterologists in Italy: A National Survey.Cancers · 2025Article
- Clinical experience and perception of risk affect the acceptance and trust of using AI in medicine.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Provider Attitudes and Perceptions on Using Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gastro hep advances · 2025Review
- Deep Learning for Image Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- Article
- Clinical impact of artificial intelligence-based solutions on imaging of the pancreas and liver.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background and aims: With the potential integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice, it is essential to understand end users' perception of this novel technology. The aim of this study, which was endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), was to evaluate the UK gastroenterology and endoscopy communities' views on AI. Methods: An online survey was developed and disseminated to gastroenterologists and endoscopists across the UK. Results: One hundred four participants completed the survey. Quality improvement in endoscopy (97%) and better endoscopic diagnosis (92%) were perceived as the most beneficial applications of AI to clinical practice. The most significant challenges were accountability for incorrect diagnoses (85%) and potential bias of algorithms (82%). A lack of guidelines (92%) was identified as the greatest barrier to adopting AI in routine clinical practice. Participants identified real-time endoscopic image diagnosis (95%) as a research priority for AI, while the most perceived significant barriers to AI research were funding (82%) and the availability of annotated data (76%). Participants consider the priorities for the BSG AI Task Force to be identifying research priorities (96%), guidelines for adopting AI devices in clinical practice (93%) and supporting the delivery of multicentre clinical trials (91%). Conclusion: This survey has identified views from the UK gastroenterology and endoscopy community regarding AI in clinical practice and research, and identified priorities for the newly formed BSG AI Task Force.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.