ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current evidence and future directions.
Review in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for the Detection of Small Bowel Lesions and Neoplasia: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Article
- Human-machine collaboration in colorectal cancer screening: a narrative review of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cholangioscopy: A New Frontier for Indeterminate Biliary Strictures.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnostic procedure of gastrointestinal endoscopy serves essential functions in handling gastrointestinal disorders. Classic endoscopic approaches encounter multiple problems because they depend on human operators and yield ambiguous results during lesion detection. The development of artificial intelligence systems has risen as an efficient technology to enhance diagnosis precision and procedural efficiency during endoscopic procedures. The objective of this review is to assess how artificial intelligence (AI) technology influences gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures for both lesion identification and classification, and malignant polyp identification, as well as clinical intervention operations. The research investigates obstacles that exist alongside AI implementation problems in clinical gastroenterological practices and determines forthcoming guidelines. A thorough literature survey was conducted through accessing databases, including PubMed alongside Scopus as well as ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and Springer. Studies after 2019 were evaluated for the AI performance in GI endoscopic examination. The use of AI in endoscopic visual examinations boosts both the diagnostic accuracy of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy lesions and exceeds traditional analysis methods. AI technology enhances predictions of malignant polyp status, which helps doctors make treatment decisions while lowering the number of unnecessary biopsies. Several obstacles, including technical boundaries and biased data, and regulatory obstacles, together with clinical implementation obstacles, still continue to exist. The advancement of artificial intelligence through GI endoscopy has led to an improvement of diagnostic outcomes and treatment efficiency alongside better clinical choice capabilities. AI will implement its complete role in routine clinical practice, but needs research about current challenges and regulatory adjustments, and technological improvements to boost patient outcomes.
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.