Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42344396›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2026

Assessing realism of artificial intelligence-generated colorectal polyp images: International multicenter blinded reader study.

Philipp Sodmann, Ronja Weber, Valentin Wettstein, Ioannis Kafetzis, Yun Chiang, Venkatesh Parayitam, Michela Pauletti, Konstantinos Kouladouros, Alexander Meining, Alexander Hann

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07108569 (Ability of Physicians to Distinguish Real From Artificial Colon Polyp Images), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT07108569 nacompletednot on this map

Ability of Physicians to Distinguish Real From Artificial Colon Polyp Images

TypeinterventionalSponsorWuerzburg University HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled53ConditionsColon Polyp, Colonic AdenomaArmsLutetia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Philipp SodmannInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.ORCID 0000-0002-5598-8533
Ronja WeberInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.
Valentin WettsteinInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.
Ioannis KafetzisInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.ORCID 0000-0002-3533-2246
Yun ChiangInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.
Venkatesh ParayitamInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.
Michela PaulettiInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.
Konstantinos KouladourosCentral Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, Department of Hepatology and GastroenterologyCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany.
Alexander MeiningInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.
Alexander HannInterventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine 2University Hospital WürzburgWürzburgGermany.ORCID 0000-0001-8035-3559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Prevention of colorectal cancer relies on detection and characterization of polyps during colonoscopy, yet access to large, shareable training datasets is limited. To address this issue, we developed a diffusion-based artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate synthetic polyp images in high-resolution and assessed their perceived realism in an international blinded reader study. Patients and methods: Fifty-three endoscopists from 46 centers across 14 countries evaluated 20 real and 20 AI-generated images in random order using our web platform Lutetia. Experts classified the images as either real or synthetic and rated their confidence. The primary endpoint was sensitivity of identifying synthetic images. Secondary endpoints were recognition of real images and overall accuracy. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT07108569. Results: Sensitivity for detecting AI-generated images was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65%-67%) with a specificity of 80% (95% CI 79%-81%); overall accuracy was 73% (95% CI 72%-73%). Low-confidence decisions were more frequent for AI-generated images and associated with longer annotation time ( Conclusions: Difficulties in differentiating synthetic from real images together with lower confidence and longer decision times shows that our diffusion model generates highly realistic polyp images.

Indexed as

Endoscopy Lower GI TractGenerative AIImage and data processing, documentationPolyps / adenomas / ...Training

Identifiers

PMID42344396
PMCPMC13289962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.