ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Human-machine collaboration in colorectal cancer screening: a narrative review of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.
Review in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a globally prevalent malignant tumor, and colonoscopy serves as the gold standard for its early screening and diagnosis. However, traditional colonoscopy highly depends on the experience of endoscopists, which is associated with limitations such as a relatively high miss rate and inadequate inspection quality control. This narrative review summarizes the application progress, clinical value, and existing challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy. Currently, AI has formed three mature application directions, namely computer-aided detection, diagnosis, and quality control training, which extensively cover key links of colonoscopy, including bowel preparation assessment, cecal landmark identification, withdrawal quality monitoring, auxiliary lesion detection, and polyp character evaluation. Preliminary evidence suggests that AI can promote the standardization of colonoscopy procedures and the refinement of quality control indicators, potentially bridge the diagnostic gap between endoscopists with different levels of experience, and reduce the misdiagnosis of minor lesions. However, current studies predominantly report positive effects, and there is a lack of long-term outcome data, standardized methodology, and discussion of human-AI interaction dynamics. In conclusion, AI is expected to become an important auxiliary tool for the early screening and diagnosis of CRC, but further rigorous evaluation of its clinical value and collaborative workflow is needed.
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.