ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2026
User perceptions of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection system in colonoscopy: a single-center exploratory survey study.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 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
Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (AI-CADe) systems can improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, successful clinical implementation depends on diagnostic performance and user acceptance, usability, and workflow integration. This study evaluated user perceptions before and after the clinical implementation of AI-CADe. Methods: This single-center, repeated, cross-sectional descriptive survey evaluated the endoscopy unit staff perceptions of AI-CADe at the National Cancer Center. Two anonymous online surveys were administered before and 1 month after the system installation. The surveys assessed the perceived diagnostic benefits, workflow impact, user satisfaction, concerns regarding false-positive detection, dependence on AI, and factors influencing acceptance and continued use. The analyses were descriptive and exploratory. Results: Twenty-nine and 25 participants completed the pre- and post-installation surveys, respectively. Positive responses regarding the interest in AI-CADe, perceived adenoma detection rate improvement, expected lesion removal, patient satisfaction, procedural satisfaction, and workflow impact were reported in both survey phases. Concerns regarding overdetection, unnecessary biopsies, and increased dependence on AI were also reported. Accuracy and sensitivity were the most frequently selected adoption factors, followed by cost and false-positive rates. Open-ended feedback included positive comments regarding lesion recognition, procedural support, and limitations related to repeated alerts, false-positive alarms, delayed detection, and system responsiveness. Conclusion: Endoscopy unit staff members showed favorable perceptions of AI-CADe and recognized its potential value in colonoscopy practice. However, concerns regarding false-positive detection, workflow integration, and dependence on AI indicate the need for user-centered optimization and long-term real-world evaluation.
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.