ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2026
Patients' experiences and attitudes toward the use of real-time artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited knowledge about how patients experience artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. Concerns regarding safety and quality could be a barrier between patients and the healthcare system when implementing AI. It is crucial to understand patients' attitudes, and how they may react to AI being implemented when aiming to preserve their trust. We investigated patients' attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy to gain insights that can be used when introducing this new technology to future patients.
methodThis is a qualitative study based on semi-structured focus group interviews. Habile, Danish-speaking adults who had received an AI-assisted colonoscopy were invited. We conducted six focus group interviews, with 20 participants in total. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsPatients described a sense of vulnerability in relation to undergoing a colonoscopy. Three main themes were identified. The first theme is 'Empathy and professionalism-trust in AI-assistance in colonoscopy depends on human factors'. The second and the third themes are 'Information about AI should be proportional to the consequences', and 'Trying to make sense of AI during colonoscopy-balancing curiosity, irrelevance, and vulnerability'.
conclusionTrust in AI-assistance is dependent on trust in the clinicians. While AI has many strengths, it cannot provide empathy, which is essential for patients in distressing moments, such as during a colonoscopy. AI should be considered a supportive tool, while the endoscopist remains responsible for clinical decisions and patient outcomes. If written information about AI is provided, it should be informative but concise, avoiding details that generate more confusion than clarity.
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.