Trial reportWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2024
Application value of an artificial intelligence-based diagnosis and recognition system in gastroscopy training for graduate students in gastroenterology: a preliminary study.
Trial report in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of artificial intelligence assisted training and traditional learning paths in clinical simulation skills training: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of the impact of artificial intelligence on educational outcomes in health professions education.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in surgical care within low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review of development, validation, and deployment.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Upper Gastrointestinal Diagnosis.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025Review
- Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Among Gastroenterologists in Italy: A National Survey.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to discuss the application value of an artificial intelligence-based diagnosis and recognition system (AIDRS) in the teaching activities for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) in China. The learning performance of graduate students in gastroenterology during gastroscopy training with and without AIDRS was assessed.
methodsThe study recruited 32 graduate students of the gastroenterology program at Jiangsu province hospital of Chinese medicine and Xiangyang No. 1 People's Hospital from March 2018 to March 2022 and randomly divided them into AIDRS (n = 16) and non-AIDRS (n = 16) groups. The AIDRS software was used for real-time monitoring of blind spots of gastroscopy to aid in lesion diagnosis and recognition in the AIDRS group. Only a conventional gastroscopic procedure was implemented in the non-AIDRS group. The final performance score, success rate of gastroscopy, lesion detection rate, and pain score of patients were compared between the two groups during gastroscopy. A self-prepared teaching and learning satisfaction questionnaire was administered to the two groups of students.
resultsThe AIDRS group had a higher final performance score (92.60 ± 2.83 vs. 89.21 ± 3.57, t = 2.98, P < 0.05), a higher success rate of gastroscopy (448/480 vs. 417/480, χ
conclusionIn the context of medicine-education cooperation, AIDRS offered valuable assistance in gastroscopy training and increased the success rate of gastroscopy and teaching and learning satisfaction. AIDRS is worthy of wider-scale promotion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37676426What 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.