Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42882337›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology: Towards Explainable, Generalisable and Clinically Actionable Decision Support.

İsmail Baydili, Burak Tasci, Sengul Dogan, Turker Tuncer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

İsmail BaydiliDepartment of Audiovisual Techniques and Media Production, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-8563-8342
Burak TasciVocational School of Technical Sciences, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-4490-0946
Sengul DoganDepartment of Digital Forensics Engineering, Technology Faculty, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-9677-5684
Turker TuncerDepartment of Digital Forensics Engineering, Technology Faculty, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-5126-6445

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in gastroenterology for endoscopic detection and characterisation, disease-activity assessment, risk prediction, treatment-response estimation and workflow support. However, high retrospective accuracy does not necessarily translate into reliable or beneficial clinical decision support. This structured narrative review examines the clinical development of artificial intelligence across gastrointestinal endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease, hepatology and pancreaticobiliary diseases through three translational dimensions: explainability, generalisability and clinical actionability. Communication, human oversight and lifecycle governance are considered cross-cutting determinants of implementation. The evidence is most mature in gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for computer-aided polyp detection, although benefits vary across operators, indications and practice settings. Applications in inflammatory bowel disease, hepatology and pancreaticobiliary care remain predominantly retrospective, with limited prospective evidence that model outputs alter management or improve patient outcomes. Explainability is commonly represented by heatmaps or feature-attribution methods, but rarely evaluated in terms of clinician understanding, calibrated trust or patient communication. External validation is becoming more frequent, yet geographic and technological transportability, calibration and performance under dataset shift remain insufficiently assessed. Prospective implementation and health-economic studies are uncommon, and available economic evidence is largely model-based. Clinical artificial intelligence should therefore be evaluated as a sociotechnical intervention comprising the model, interface, users, workflow, communication process and associated care pathway. Translation requires clinically defined use cases, representative multicentre validation, human-centred evaluation, prospective assessment of benefits and harms, and continuous post-deployment surveillance. Clinical AI in gastroenterology should complement clinical expertise through transparent, contestable and continuously monitored decision support that preserves clinician accountability and supports informed, patient-centred decisions.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision supportexplainable artificial intelligencegastroenterologygeneralisabilityhuman–AI interactionimplementation scienceshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID42882337
PMCPMC13664018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.