ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2025
Artificial intelligence-assisted versus conventional reading in pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy for suspected mid-lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating the Performance of the TOP100 Tool in Detecting Key Small Bowel Findings at Capsule Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Hemostatic Decision-Making: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications and Implementation Barriers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Wireless Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE) offers a safer, more effective alternative to colonoscopy for detecting potentially haemorrhagic lesions (PHL) in suspected mid-lower gastrointestinal bleeding (MLGIB), though it is limited by time-consuming review and missed lesions. We compared the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-assisted PCE (AI-PCE) versus conventional reading PCE (CR-PCE) and colonoscopy.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 100 prospectively enrolled patients undergoing PCE for suspected MLGIB using an externally validated convolutional neural network. Diagnostic performance of AI-PCE, CR-PCE and colonoscopy was evaluated against a consensus reference standard. Accuracy metrics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV)) were assessed overall and by lesion type and intestinal segment.
resultsAI-PCE detected PHL in 60% of patients versus 42% with CR-PCE (p<0.01). Lesions included vascular (51% vs 33%, p<0.01), ulcers/erosions (16% vs 7%, p=0.012), protuberant (5% vs 4%, p=1.0) and active bleeding (7% vs 7%, p=1.0). AI-PCE achieved higher sensitivity than CR-PCE (95% vs 67%, p<0.0001) with comparable specificity (97% vs 97%), PPV (98% vs 98%) and superior NPV (92% vs 63%, p=0.0015). For the small bowel, AI-PCE outperformed CR-PCE in sensitivity (96% vs 59%, p<0.0001) and NPV (97% vs 76%, p=0.0010). In colon, AI-PCE also showed greater sensitivity (90% vs 68%, p=0.027) and NPV (94% vs 86%, p = 0.066). Compared with colonoscopy, AI-PCE was markedly more sensitive (90% vs 32%, p<0.0001) with higher PPV (100% vs 65%, p<0.001) and NPV (94% vs 65%, p<0.0001).
conclusionAI-PCE significantly improves diagnostic accuracy over conventional reading and colonoscopy, offering superior sensitivity without compromising specificity, and may establish a new standard for PCE in MLGIB.
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.