ArticleDEN open2026
Effects of artificial intelligence assistance on endoscopist performance: Comparison of diagnostic performance in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma detection using video-based models.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Hemostatic Decision-Making: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications and Implementation Barriers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hyperspectral reconstruction of white light endoscopy images for enhanced segmentation of early esophageal lesions in patients.iScience · 2026Article
- Comparing artificial intelligence and healthcare professional performance in surgical and interventional video analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence-assisted endoscopy and high-quality data for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in the detection and characterization of gastrointestinal premalignant and early malignant lesions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- A YOLO Ensemble Framework for Detection of Barrett's Esophagus Lesions in Endoscopic Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) detection is crucial. Although narrow-band imaging improves detection, its effectiveness is diminished by inexperienced endoscopists. The effects of artificial intelligence (AI) assistance on ESCC detection by endoscopists remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate an AI model for ESCC detection using endoscopic video analysis and evaluate diagnostic improvements. Methods: Endoscopic videos with and without ESCC lesions were collected from May 2020 to January 2022. The AI model trained on annotated videos and 18 endoscopists (eight experts, 10 non-experts) evaluated their diagnostic performance. After 4 weeks, the endoscopists re-evaluated the test data with AI assistance. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared between endoscopists with and without AI assistance. Results: Training data comprised 280 cases (140 with and 140 without lesions), and test data, 115 cases (52 with and 63 without lesions). In the test data, the median lesion size was 14.5 mm (range: 1-100 mm), with pathological depths ranging from high-grade intraepithelial to submucosal neoplasia. The model's sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 76.0%, 79.4%, and 77.2%, respectively. With AI assistance, endoscopist sensitivity (57.4% vs. 66.5%) and accuracy (68.6% vs. 75.9%) improved significantly, while specificity increased slightly (87.0% vs. 91.6%). Experts demonstrated substantial improvements in sensitivity (59.1% vs. 70.0%) and accuracy (72.1% vs. 79.3%). Non-expert accuracy increased significantly (65.8% vs. 73.3%), with slight improvements in sensitivity (56.1% vs. 63.7%) and specificity (81.9% vs. 89.2%). Conclusions: AI assistance enhances ESCC detection and improves endoscopists' diagnostic performance, regardless of experience.
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.