Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109313›Full record

ReviewEndoscopy international open2025

Conventional small-bowel capsule endoscopy reading vs proprietary artificial intelligence auxiliary systems: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, Stefano Fantasia, Stefano Kayali, Ulrik Deding, Noemi Gualandi, Mauro Manno, Ervin Toth, Xavier Dray, Shiming Yang, Anastasios Koulaouzidis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Pablo Cortegoso ValdiviaGastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8793-5890
Stefano FantasiaGastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Stefano KayaliGastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Ulrik DedingDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8263-2989
Noemi GualandiGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, AUSL Modena, Carpi, Italy.ORCID 0009-0006-3352-5008
Mauro MannoGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, AUSL Modena, Carpi, Italy.
Ervin TothDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmoe, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9314-9239
Xavier DrayCenter for Digestive Endoscopy, Saint Antoine Hospital, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Shiming YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Anastasios KoulaouzidisDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2248-489X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is the gold standard for diagnosing small bowel (SB) pathologies, but its time-consuming nature and potential for human error make it challenging. Several proprietary artificial intelligence (AI) auxiliary systems based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that are integrated into SBCE reading platforms are available on the market and offer the opportunity to improve lesion detection and reduce reading times. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate performance of proprietary AI auxiliary platforms in SBCE compared with conventional, human-only reading. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing AI-assisted SBCE readings with conventional readings by gastroenterologists. Performance measures such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and reading times were extracted and analyzed. Methodological transparency was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) assessment tool. Results: Of 669 identified studies, 104 met the inclusion criteria and six were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed high methodological transparency for all included studies. Pooled analysis showed that AI-assisted reading achieved significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to conventional reading, with a higher log diagnostic odds ratio and no substantial heterogeneity. In addition, AI integration substantially reduced reading times, with a mean decrease of 12-fold compared with conventional reading. Conclusions: AI-assisted SBCE reading outperforms conventional human review in terms of detection accuracy and sensitivity, remarkably reducing reading times. AI in this setting could be a game-changer in reducing endoscopy service workload and supporting novice reader training.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCapsule endoscopyEndoscopy Small BowelSmall bowel endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID40109313
PMCPMC11922306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.