Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41716045›Full record

ArticleDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2026

Endoscopist and Patients' Values and Preferences on Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: An Intercontinental Opinion Survey by the World Endoscopy Organization.

O F Ahmad, A de Groof, A Ali, P Bassett, M Engels, S Hoogenboom, N Coelho-Prabhu, H Yu, M Mwachiro, S Parasa and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical and Legal Implications of Implementing AI in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

O F AhmadDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
A de GroofDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
A AliDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
P BassettStatsconsultancy Ltd, Amersham, UK.
M EngelsDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
S HoogenboomDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Haga Hospital, The Hague, the Netherlands.
N Coelho-PrabhuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
H YuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1882-7060
M MwachiroCollege of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa, Arusha, Tanzania.
S ParasaSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
R Mansilla VivarDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Puerto Montt, Puerto Montt, Chile.
J MushtaqDepartment of Gastroenterology, Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
H NeumannDepartment of Endoscopy, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany.
S ThakkarSection of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
M F ByrneDivision of Gastroenterology, Vancouver General Hospital/University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
J E van HooftDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
T YanoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8030-1449
Y MoriClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

European Commission 101057099European Commission 22H03357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, yet limited data exist on how patients and endoscopists perceive its use. This study aimed to evaluate users' values and preferences regarding AI in endoscopy to support effective implementation and inform guideline development.

methodsAs part of the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) AI committee initiatives, two structured international surveys were conducted-one for patients and one for practicing endoscopists. Thirteen AI-related statements were presented to patients via an established online platform, while 23 statements were shared with endoscopists through professional networks. Responses were captured using 5-point Likert scales and analyzed with non-parametric tests, including subgroup comparisons by age, gender, and endoscopic experience.

resultsA total of 1237 patients and 476 endoscopists participated. Most patients supported AI in image analysis (75.5%) but emphasized the need for endoscopist oversight (92.3%). Among endoscopists, 90.3% believed AI improves endoscopy quality, and 85.3% believed it benefits outcomes. Concerns were raised about liability (47%), operator dependency (34.8%), and procedure time (49%). Most respondents felt primary responsibility for AI-related errors should rest with the endoscopist. Younger and male patients reported greater trust in AI.

conclusionsPatients and endoscopists are generally supportive of AI in GI endoscopy, especially as an adjunct to human expertise. However, key concerns-including accountability, trust, and clinical integration-must be addressed to ensure responsible and effective adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelEndoscopy, GastrointestinalPatient PreferenceAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesartificial intelligenceendoscopymedical liabilitypatient acceptance of health carephysician‐patient relations

Identifiers

PMID41716045
PMCPMC12921463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.