Usefulness of artificial intelligence-assisted digital single-operator cholangioscopy as a second-opinion consultation tool during interhospital assessment of an indeterminate biliary stricture: a case report.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Emerging role of artificial intelligence in gastroenterology and hepatology.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
   Review
2. Diagnostic Approach to Biliary Strictures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Review
3. Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Pancreaticobiliary Endoscopy.Cancers · 2025
   Review
4. Cholangioscopy-based convoluted neuronal network vs. confocal laser endomicroscopy in identification of neoplastic biliary strictures.Endoscopy international open · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract