Cited by 102Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Position statement on priorities for artificial intelligence in GI endoscopy: a report by the ASGE Task Force

Berzin, Tyler M., Parasa, Sravanthi, Wallace, Michael B., Gross, Seth A., Repici, Alessandro, Sharma, Prateek·2020·Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) in GI endoscopy holds tremendous promise to augment clinical performance, establish better treatment plans, and improve patient outcomes. Although there are promising initial applications and preliminary clinical data for AI in gastroenterology, the field is still in a very early phase, with limited clinical use. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has convened an AI Task Force to develop guidance around clinical implementation, testing/validating algorithms, and building pathways for successful implementation of AI in GI endoscopy. This White Paper focuses on 3 areas: (1) priority use cases for development of AI algorithms in GI, both for specific clinical scenarios and for streamlining clinical workflows, quality reporting, and practice management; (2) data science priorities, including development of image libraries, and standardization of methods for storing, sharing, and annotating endoscopic images/video; and (3) research priorities, focusing on the importance of high-quality, prospective trials measuring clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.035

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies on CADx systems for colonoscopy focused on assessing the performances of AI against the accuracy of physicians or against criteria established by gastroenterology societies for implementing the technology in a clinical setting.

    “Previous studies on cadx systems for colonoscopy focused on assessing the performances of ai against the accuracy of physicians19,20,27–30, or against the criteria established by gastroenterology societies for implementing the technology in a clinical setting31–34.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berzin, T. M., Parasa, S., Wallace, M. B., Gross, S. A., Repici, A., & Sharma, P.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Swedish Medical Center (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Berzin, Tyler M.
Venue
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
92
Issue
4
Pages
951-959
ISSN
0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035892831
Cited by
102
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • Medtronic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
artificial intelligence, clinical implementation of AI, quality reporting, practice management, patient outcomes, research priorities
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Gastroenterology, Humans, Prospective Studies, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review