Trial reportEndoscopy2026
Learning and deskilling effects of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy among endoscopists with different levels of experience: a pragmatic, prospective trial.
Trial report in Endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- When the Algorithm Speaks First: Trust, Reliance and the Reconstruction of Clinical Metacognition.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Bridging the Precancerous Gap in Colorectal Cancer Through AI-Enhanced Liquid Biopsy, Endoscopy, and Digital Pathology.Cancers · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The effect of computer-aided detection (CADe) on performance of endoscopists with different experience levels is not well understood. This study assessed whether CADe use promotes learning or deskilling. Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter, registry-based, pragmatic clinical trial. The primary end point was change in the proportion of colonoscopies with detection of at least one polyp ≥5 mm (PDR-5). Each endoscopist performed colonoscopies in three successive phases: 1) before CADe exposure, 2) during CADe use, and 3) after CADe removal. To assess the impact of CADe on PDR-5, we compared phase 1 with phases 2 and 3, adjusting for patient and endoscopist characteristics and endoscopy performance measures. Generalized linear mixed models were used and presented according to endoscopist experience. Results: 13 endoscopists (7 inexperienced, 6 experienced) performed 5013 colonoscopies; median patient age was 59 years (interquartile range 44-71) and 2703 (53.9%) were women. Patient sex and age were similar across the two experience groups, whereas indications differed (e.g. more inflammatory bowel disease in the inexperienced group). CADe temporarily increased PDR-5 among inexperienced endoscopists from phase 1 to 2 (31.9% [216/678] to 39.5% [257/651]; odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95%CI 1.11-1.84). There was no significant change between phases 1 and 3 (31.9% [216/678] to 36.3% [173/476]; OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.79-1.34). There was no significant CADe effect on PDR-5 among experienced endoscopists between phases. Conclusions: PDR-5 of inexperienced endoscopists increased when CADe was used. In non-CADe-assisted colonoscopy, no upskilling or deskilling was observed following a period of CADe exposure.
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.