ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Perception and Understanding of Artificial Intelligence Among Gastroenterology Fellows and Early Career Gastroenterologists: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Care of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International Survey.Digestive diseases and sciences · 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
- Responsible use of large language models in gastroenterology and hepatology.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is expanding rapidly in healthcare, particularly in gastroenterology (GI). Applications include enhancing colonoscopy accuracy, identifying dysplasia, and predicting clinical outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease. Despite AI's potential, concerns about ethical use and inadequate training persist.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the perceptions and understanding of AI among U.S. GI trainees and early career professionals.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among members of the American College of Gastroenterology. The survey assessed AI experience, confidence, and educational needs, with comparisons between fellows and early career. Fisher's exact test and multivariate regressions were applied to assess differences in responses.
resultsA total of 193 respondents completed the survey (54.1% fellows, 45.9% early career). Most respondents (73%) were aged 25-35, and 91.6% believed AI would significantly impact healthcare. Only 6.7% currently use AI in practice, with fellows less likely to use AI compared to early career gastroenterologists (65.4 vs. 82.0%, P = 0.031). Confidence was low overall, with fellows reporting significantly less confidence in interpreting AI findings (P = 0.025) and understanding AI limitations (P = 0.050). A notable gap in the basic understanding of AI concepts, such as machine learning and neural networks, was evident among both groups, particularly fellows. Common concerns included misuse (64.2%), data privacy (40.2%), and financial costs (32.7%).
conclusionsInterest in AI is high, but confidence and experience are limited. Ethical concerns and knowledge gaps highlight the urgent need for structured AI education in GI training. Comprehensive AI curricula focusing on practical use, critical interpretation, and ethics are strongly needed to equip gastroenterologists with the skills for responsible and effective clinical integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40272661What 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.