ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology: Towards Explainable, Generalisable and Clinically Actionable Decision Support.
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.
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
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
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.