ArticleDEN open2026
Artificial Intelligence-assisted Endoscopy and Examiner Confidence: A Study on Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction in Barrett's Esophagus (With Video).
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 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.
- Applications of Large Language Models in Medical Research: From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Clinical Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: A Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction Perspective].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Flexure and Landmark Identification Improves Reporting Completeness in Colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Despite high stand-alone performance, studies demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI)-supported endoscopic diagnostics often fall short in clinical applications due to human-AI interaction factors. This video-based trial on Barrett's esophagus aimed to investigate how examiner behavior, their levels of confidence, and system usability influence the diagnostic outcomes of AI-assisted endoscopy. Methods: The present analysis employed data from a multicenter randomized controlled tandem video trial involving 22 endoscopists with varying degrees of expertise. Participants were tasked with evaluating a set of 96 endoscopic videos of Barrett's esophagus in two distinct rounds, with and without AI assistance. Diagnostic confidence levels were recorded, and decision changes were categorized according to the AI prediction. Additional surveys assessed user experience and system usability ratings. Results: AI assistance significantly increased examiner confidence levels ( Conclusions: Our findings highlight the pivotal function of examiner behavior in AI-assisted endoscopy. To fully realize the benefits of AI, implementing explainable AI, improving user interfaces, and providing targeted training are essential. Addressing these factors could enhance diagnostic accuracy and confidence in clinical practice.
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.