ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
AI-assisted improvement of endoscopic diagnosis of ampullary lesions.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ampullary neoplasms are often challenging to detect during forward-viewing esophagogastroduodenoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) assistance on the accuracy of endoscopists in identifying ampullary lesions. The stand-alone AI model achieved an accuracy of 84.2%, with AUCs ranging from 83.2% to 90.9% across binary classification tasks. With AI assistance, mean diagnostic accuracies significantly improved for endoscopy fellows (63.5%-75.8%, P < 0.001) and gastrointestinal endoscopists (68.4%-76.5%, P = 0.012), while no significant difference was observed for pancreatobiliary endoscopists (70.8%-73.1%, P = 1.000). In binary tasks, AI assistance significantly enhanced specificity for two fellows in distinguishing normal from abnormal ampullae (P = 0.023 and P = 0.041) and for another fellow in differentiating malignancy (67.4%-89.1%, P = 0.004). These improvements in accuracy and specificity, particularly among less-experienced endoscopists, were achieved without compromising sensitivity for the detection of abnormal lesions. AI assistance enhanced diagnostic accuracy and specificity for ampullary lesions, particularly among non-pancreatobiliary endoscopists, without compromising sensitivity. These findings demonstrate the retrospective proof-of-concept potential of AI assistance, highlighting the need for subsequent prospective and video-based validation to confirm its clinical utility in the evaluation of ampullary lesions.
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.