ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Survey on the perceptions of Asian endoscopists to artificial intelligence.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Clinical Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: A Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction Perspective].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2026Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Vietnam: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have demonstrated the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy for managing gastrointestinal diseases. However, there is limited knowledge of the perspective of endoscopists towards AI technology, particularly in the Asian community. This study aims to bridge this knowledge gap to guide policymakers, healthcare providers, and technology developers through an Asia AI Task Force.
methodsAn online survey of 45 questions exploring (a) the perceived benefits of AI in endoscopy, (b) the barriers to adopting AI in endoscopy, (c) the priority areas and barriers to research in AI endoscopy, as well as (d) priorities for an Asia AI Task Force were distributed between November 2022 and May 2023 to endoscopists from sixteen medical institutes across ten Asian regions.
resultsA total of 293 participants completed the survey. Two-fifths (41.98%, n = 123) report no prior exposure to AI endoscopy. The majority (73.2%, n = 90/123) of those without prior AI exposure express concerns about the accountability of AI and its impact on working practices. Almost all participants agree that AI enhances quality improvement (90.8%, n = 266) and leads to better diagnosis (90.4%, n = 265). 69% (n = 202) identify "staying up to date with AI advances" as the top challenge towards clinical adoption of AI. Notably, those without prior AI exposure express high concern regarding accountability for the wrong diagnoses (73.2% vs. 60.6%, p = 0.03) and lack of clinical trials (76.4% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.001). Most respondents prioritise developing a reference paper guide for clinicians interested in AI (81.2%) and supporting funding applications for AI research (81.5%) as key areas that an Asia AI Endoscopy task force should address.
conclusionsThe survey results from Asian endoscopists emphasise the pressing need for collaborative frameworks and educational initiatives, including establishing an Asia AI Task Force, to facilitate the successful integration of AI in endoscopy practice and research across the region.
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.