ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this position statement is to propose expected performance values for artificial intelligence (AI) applications in colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), with emphasis on detection, characterization, localization, reporting, and downstream management of colonic neoplasia. The task force was created within the Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy (AICE) consortium project work and drew on members of the international CApsule endoscopy REsearch (iCARE) group for development, review, consensus voting, and final approval. These values are intended as consensus-based benchmarks for research, validation, and future clinical translation, while explicitly acknowledging the limited availability of robust CCE-specific clinical evidence. The task force included CCE experts, technical experts, patient representatives, and an ethicist, and defined expected values using existing endoscopy quality frameworks, available capsule endoscopy literature, relevant proxy evidence from colonoscopy, and structured Delphi consensus. A supermajority agreement of more than 80% across up to three Delphi voting rounds was required for consensus. The agreed statements address candidate selection, assessment of mucosal visualization and procedure completeness, landmark and segment recognition, polyp matching, lesion size estimation, reading-time reduction, detection of colorectal neoplasia, false-positive burden, risk stratification for subsequent procedures, prediction of advanced pathology, urgency categorization, and automated report generation. The proposed thresholds should not be interpreted as definitive requirements for immediate clinical adoption. Instead, they identify minimum expected value and aspirational value that future systems should be tested against in prospective, externally validated, full-video CCE studies.
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.