ReviewGastro hep advances2025
Provider Attitudes and Perceptions on Using Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Gastro hep advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human-machine collaboration in colorectal cancer screening: a narrative review of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is the gold standard screening modality for colorectal cancer; however, it is operator-dependent and reliant on exam quality. Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into colonoscopy may improve adenoma detection and clinical outcomes, but this is a sociotechnical challenge that requires effective human-AI teaming incorporating provider attitudes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating attitudes and perspectives of providers toward AI-assisted colonoscopy. Participant responses to outcome questions of interest were combined across the studies to calculate pooled proportion (Pp) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Top-ranked perceived advantages and disadvantages in each study were defined as the items that >50% of the study participants voted for. Results: Out of 2044 abstracts screened, 13 studies were included representing 1538 providers who were mostly gastroenterologists or trainees and 25%-100% had direct experience using AI in a clinical setting. Overall, a large majority were interested in using AI (Pp = 80%, 95% CI 70%-89%, n = 8 studies) and believed it can improve adenoma or polyp detection rate (Pp = 74%, 95% CI 68%-80%, n = 4 studies). Among 5 studies addressing financial implications, about half were concerned about the cost of using AI (52%, 95% CI 24%-79%). An average of 38% of respondents (95% CI 9%-73%) from 4 studies raised concern regarding accountability for misdiagnosis. High number of false positives and an absence of clinical guidelines were top-ranked perceived disadvantages in 2 studies. Conclusion: Most gastroenterology providers expressed interest in using AI systems with colonoscopy and believed it can improve adenoma detection rate. Cost, high number of false positives, and lack of professional society guidelines were among top perceived concerns.
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.