ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Impact of interaction between an artificial intelligence endoscopic support system and endoscopists on diagnosis of gastric neoplastic lesions.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to enhance the ability of endoscopists to detect gastric neoplastic lesions; however, its effectiveness among highly skilled Japanese expert endoscopists has not been validated. We developed a novel AI-assisted diagnostic tool for detection of gastric neoplastic lesions and evaluated its utility by comparing the diagnostic performance of endoscopists with and without AI assistance. Patients and methods: Diagnostic performance of gastric neoplastic lesions without and with AI assistance was compared among 14 expert endoscopists and 12 non-expert endoscopists using an evaluation dataset consisting of 150 images containing neoplastic lesions and 350 images without lesions. A general linear mixed model was applied for comparative analysis. The primary outcome was to demonstrate superiority of sensitivity and non-inferiority of specificity among expert endoscopists using AI compared with those without AI. The significance level for sensitivity was set at 2.5% and the non-inferiority margin for specificity was defined as a log odds ratio of -0.25. Results: Our AI demonstrated superiority in sensitivity (66.4% without AI vs. 83.5% with AI; odds ratio [OR] 2.562, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 2.069-3.172) and non-inferiority in specificity (90.8% without AI vs. 92.9% with AI; OR 1.326, 95% CI 1.122-1.565) among expert endoscopists. Conclusions: AI contributed to improved diagnostic performance even among Japanese expert endoscopists in detecting gastric neoplastic lesions. These findings suggest that the AI system may have potential to support consistently high diagnostic performance across varying levels of endoscopic expertise.
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.