ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2026
Training future endoscopists: gastroenterology fellows' perspectives and hands-on exposure to artificial intelligence for polyp detection in the United States.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy for polyp detection is designed to improve colonoscopy quality. Although surveys have assessed staff gastroenterologists' attitudes toward AI, less is known about the views of gastroenterology (GE) fellows regarding AI during training. Methods: We conducted a nationwide survey of GE fellows from August 2024 to November 2024 to assess (1) exposure to and experience with AI in fellowship, (2) perceptions of AI's impact on colonoscopy quality, and (3) attitudes toward implementing AI into training. The survey included Likert scale questions with branching logic to tailor questions based on AI availability at the fellows' institutions. Results: A total of 126 fellows started the survey, and 88 (69.8%) completed it. AI was available at least at 1 training site for 69.3% of respondents. In addition, 81.8% of fellows believed AI should be available during fellowship. Many fellows (43.2%) thought AI should be incorporated in the second year of training. Most fellows (60.7%) believed early exposure to AI-enhanced polyp detection skills. However, 52.5% felt neutral that AI made them better endoscopists overall. Despite this, 62.5% preferred to pursue a job with AI if they had trained with it. Conclusions: Our nationwide survey found that GE fellows are generally supportive of integrating AI into their training, with most advocating for its incorporation in the second year. These results should be considered by fellowship program leadership and GE practices recruiting fellows trained with AI. Further studies are required to assess the impact of training GE fellows with AI on their polyp detection competency.
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.