Cited by 64Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence Applications

Consensus statements on the current landscape of artificial intelligence applications in endoscopy, addressing roadblocks, and advancing artificial intelligence in gastroenterology

Open access
Parasa, Sravanthi, Berzin, Tyler, Leggett, Cadman, Gross, Seth, Repici, Alessandro, Ahmad, Omer F., Chiang, Austin, Coelho-Prabhu, Nayantara +15 more·2025·Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract

Background and aims The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) AI Task Force along with experts in endoscopy, technology space, regulatory authorities, and other medical subspecialties initiated a consensus process that analyzed the current literature, highlighted potential areas, and outlined the necessary research in artificial intelligence (AI) to allow a clearer understanding of AI as it pertains to endoscopy currently. Methods A modified Delphi process was used to develop these consensus statements. Results Statement 1: Current advances in AI allow for the development of AI-based algorithms that can be applied to endoscopy to augment endoscopist performance in detection and characterization of endoscopic lesions. Statement 2: Computer vision-based algorithms provide opportunities to redefine quality metrics in endoscopy using AI, which can be standardized and can reduce subjectivity in reporting quality metrics. Natural language processing-based algorithms can help with the data abstraction needed for reporting current quality metrics in GI endoscopy effortlessly. Statement 3: AI technologies can support smart endoscopy suites, which may help optimize workflows in the endoscopy suite, including automated documentation. Statement 4: Using AI and machine learning helps in predictive modeling, diagnosis, and prognostication. High-quality data with multidimensionality are needed for risk prediction, prognostication of specific clinical conditions, and their outcomes when using machine learning methods. Statement 5: Big data and cloud-based tools can help advance clinical research in gastroenterology. Multimodal data are key to understanding the maximal extent of the disease state and unlocking treatment options. Statement 6: Understanding how to evaluate AI algorithms in the gastroenterology literature and clinical trials is important for gastroenterologists, trainees, and researchers, and hence education efforts by GI societies are needed. Statement 7: Several challenges regarding integrating AI solutions into the clinical practice of endoscopy exist, including understanding the role of human-AI interaction. Transparency, interpretability, and explainability of AI algorithms play a key role in their clinical adoption in GI endoscopy. Developing appropriate AI governance, data procurement, and tools needed for the AI lifecycle are critical for the successful implementation of AI into clinical practice. Statement 8: For payment of AI in endoscopy, a thorough evaluation of the potential value proposition for AI systems may help guide purchasing decisions in endoscopy. Reliable cost-effectiveness studies to guide reimbursement are needed. Statement 9: Relevant clinical outcomes and performance metrics for AI in gastroenterology are currently not well defined. To improve the quality and interpretability of research in the field, steps need to be taken to define these evidence standards. Statement 10: A balanced view of AI technologies and active collaboration between the medical technology industry, computer scientists, gastroenterologists, and researchers are critical for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology. Conclusions The consensus process led by the ASGE AI Task Force and experts from various disciplines has shed light on the potential of AI in endoscopy and gastroenterology. AI-based algorithms have shown promise in augmenting endoscopist performance, redefining quality metrics, optimizing workflows, and aiding in predictive modeling and diagnosis. However, challenges remain in evaluating AI algorithms, ensuring transparency and interpretability, addressing governance and data procurement, determining payment models, defining relevant clinical outcomes, and fostering collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gie.2023.12.003

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The conservative approach of classifying benign lesions as neoplastic may inadvertently lead to unnecessary early surveillance colonoscopies, thus offsetting initial pathology cost-savings.

    “However, this conservative approach may inadvertently lead to unnecessary early surveillance colonoscopies, thus offsetting initial pathology cost-savings.12,13”

    From Human–machine interaction in optical polyp diagnosis: decision-making after CADx polyp diagnosis (2026) · cites this paper as [12]

    The discussion of AI in daily endoscopy practice says algorithms can recommend appropriate surveillance intervals after polyp resection, but it does not address benign lesions being classified as neoplastic or the resulting costs. Searches for early surveillance, false-positive classification, and pathology cost-savings found no passage in our copy supporting the claimed trade-off. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 1963;9:458-67.
  2. Bennett C, Vakil N, Bergman J, et al. Consensus statements for man- agement of Barrett's dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarci- noma, based on a Delphi process. Gastroenterology 2012;143:336-46.
  3. Lui TKL, Hui CKY, Tsui VWM, et al. New insights on missed colonic le- sions during colonoscopy through artificial intelligence-assisted real- time detection (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:193-200.
  4. Wallace MB, Sharma P, Bhandari P, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2022;163: 295-304.
  5. Gong D, Wu L, Zhang J, et al. Detection of colorectal adenomas with a real-time computer-aided system (ENDOANGEL): a randomised controlled study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:352-61.
  6. Wang P, Liu X, Berzin TM, et al. Effect of a deep-learning computer- aided detection system on adenoma detection during colonoscopy (CADe-DB trial): a double-blind randomised study. Lancet Gastroenter- ol Hepatol 2020;5:343-51.
  7. Su JR, Li Z, Shao XJ, et al. Impact of a real-time automatic quality con- trol system on colorectal polyp and adenoma detection: a prospective randomized controlled study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:415-24.
  8. Repici A, Badalamenti M, Maselli R, et al. Efficacy of real-time com- puter-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2020;159:512-20.
  9. Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Real-time automatic detec- tion system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut 2019;68:1813-9.
  10. Chu Y, Yang X, Li H, et al. Multi-level feature aggregation network for instrument identification of endoscopic images. Phys Med Biol 2020;65:165004.
  11. de Groof AJ, Struyvenberg MR, Fockens KN, et al. Deep learning algo- rithm detection of Barrett's neoplasia with high accuracy during live endoscopic procedures: a pilot study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:1242-50.
  12. Faghani S, Codipilly DC, David V, et al. Development of a deep learning model for the histologic diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:918-25.
  13. Guo L, Xiao X, Wu C, et al. Real-time automated diagnosis of precan- cerous lesions and early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using a deep learning model (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91: 41-51.
  14. Hashimoto R, Requa J, Dao T, et al. Artificial intelligence using convolu- tional neural networks for real-time detection of early esophageal neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:1264-71.
  15. Hussein M, Gonzalez-Bueno Puyal J, Lines D, et al. A new artificial intel- ligence system successfully detects and localises early neoplasia in Bar- rett's esophagus by using convolutional neural networks. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2022;10:528-37.
  16. Kahn A, McKinley MJ, Stewart M, et al. Artificial intelligence-enhanced volumetric laser endomicroscopy improves dysplasia detection in Bar- rett's esophagus in a randomized cross-over study. Sci Rep 2022;12:16314.
  17. Kahn A, Pai RK, Fukami N. Novel computer-enhanced visualization of volumetric laser endomicroscopy correlates endoscopic and patholog- ical images. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:A23-4.
  18. Kanesaka T, Lee TC, Uedo N, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for iden- tifying and delineating early gastric cancers in magnifying narrow- band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:1339-44.
  19. Ruffle JK, Farmer AD, Aziz Q. Artificial intelligence-assisted gastro- enterologydpromises and pitfalls. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114: 422-8.
  20. Yan T, Wong PK, Choi IC, et al. Intelligent diagnosis of gastric intestinal metaplasia based on convolutional neural network and limited num- ber of endoscopic images. Comput Biol Med 2020;126:104026.
  21. Galanopoulos A, Ayala-Romero JA, Leith DJ, et al. AutoML for video an- alytics with edge computing. In IEEE INFOCOM 2021 -IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, May 10-13, 2021. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4966558. Accessed February 14, 2024. · DOI
  22. Wu L, Zhang J, Zhou W, et al. Randomised controlled trial of WISENSE, a real-time quality improving system for monitoring blind spots during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gut 2019;68:2161-9.
  23. Zhou J, Wu L, Wan X, et al. A novel artificial intelligence system for the assessment of bowel preparation (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:428-35.
  24. Ross T, Reinke A, Full PM, et al. Robust medical instrument segmenta- tion challenge 2019. arXiv:2003.10299. · arXiv
  25. Abadir AP, Ali MF, Karnes W, et al. Artificial intelligence in gastrointes- tinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2020;53:132-41.
  26. Liu W, Wu Y, Yuan X, et al. Artificial intelligence-based assessments of colonoscopic withdrawal technique: a new method for measuring and enhancing the quality of fold examination. Endoscopy 2022;54: 972-9.
  27. Raju GS, Lum PJ, Slack RS, et al. Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics. Gastro- intest Endosc 2015;82:512-9.
  28. Tinmouth J, Swain D, Chorneyko K, et al. Validation of a natural lan- guage processing algorithm to identify adenomas and measure ade- noma detection rates across a health system: a population-level study. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97:121-9.e1.
  29. Peterson E, May FP, Kachikian O, et al. Automated identification and assignment of colonoscopy surveillance recommendations for individ- uals with colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;94:978-87.
  30. Coiera E, Kocaballi B, Halamka J, et al. The digital scribe. NPJ Digit Med 2018;1:1-5.
  31. Bera K, Braman N, Gupta A, et al. Predicting cancer outcomes with ra- diomics and artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2022;19:132-46.
  32. Song JH, Hong Y, Kim ER, et al. Utility of artificial intelligence with deep learning of hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images to pre- dict lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer using endoscopi- cally resected specimens; prediction of lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer. J Gastroenterol 2022;57:654-66.
  33. Zhao K, Li Z, Yao S, et al. Artificial intelligence quantified tumour- stroma ratio is an independent predictor for overall survival in resect- able colorectal cancer. EBioMedicine 2020;61:103054.
  34. Soon GST, Liu F, Leow WQ, et al. Artificial intelligence improves pathol- ogist agreement for fibrosis scores in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis pa- tients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:1940-2.e3.
  35. Liu R, Greenstein JL, Sarma SV, et al. Natural language processing of clinical notes for improved early prediction of septic shock in the ICU. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2019;2019:6103-8.
  36. Craig E, Arias C, Gillman D. Predicting readmission risk from doctors' notes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.10663 2017. · arXiv
  37. Ye J, Yao L, Shen J, et al. Predicting mortality in critically ill patients with diabetes using machine learning and clinical notes. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak 2020;20:295.
  38. Parasa S, Repici A, Berzin T, et al. Framework and metrics for the clinical use and implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms into endoscopy practice: recommendations from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Artificial Intelligence Task Force. Gas- trointest Endosc 2023;97:815-24.
  39. Selvaraju RR, Cogswell M, Das A, et al. Grad-CAM: visual explana- tions from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Venice, Italy, October 22-29 2017, pp 618-26.
  40. Ladabaum U, Shepard J, Weng Y, et al. Computer-aided detection of polyps does not improve colonoscopist performance in a pragmatic implementation trial. Gastroenterology 2023;164:481-3. Abbreviations: AI, artificial intelligence; ASGE, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Copyright ª 2025 by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 0016-5107/$36.00 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2023.12.003 Received December 1, 2023. Accepted December 2, 2023. Current affiliations: Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA (1), BIDMC/HMS, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (2), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minne- sota, USA (3), NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA (4), Depart- ment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4 20072 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy (5), University College of London, London, UK (6), Medtronic Gastrointestinal, Santa Clara, California, USA (7), New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA (8), Amster- dam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (9), Northwestern University, Chica- go, Illinois, USA (10), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (11), IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56 20089

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parasa, S., Berzin, T., Leggett, C., Gross, S., Repici, A., Ahmad, O. F., Chiang, A., Coelho-Prabhu, N., Cohen, J., Dekker, E., Keswani, R. N., Kahn, C. E., Hassan, C., Petrick, N., Mountney, P., Ng, J., Riegler, M., Mori, Y., Saito, Y., Thakkar, S., Waxman, I., Wallace, M. B., & Sharma, P.
Affiliations
  • Swedish Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • University College London (GB)
  • New York University (US)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Simula Metropolitan Center for Digital Engineering (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • National Cancer Center Hospital (JP)
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City (AE)
  • University of Kansas (US)
Venue
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-01
Volume
101
Issue
1
Pages
2-9.e1
ISSN
0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394893461
Cited by
64
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 4
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Microsoft Research
  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • Olympus
  • Cook Medical
  • Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated
  • Verily Life Sciences
  • Fujifilm Holdings
  • Ipsen
  • Norgine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
artificial intelligence in endoscopy, gastroenterology, computer vision, natural language processing, automated documentation, predictive modeling, outcome prediction, big data, cloud-based tools, AI governance, human-AI interaction, explainability, cost-effectiveness, reimbursement, clinical adoption, artificial intelligence in education, AI regulation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Delphi Technique, Gastroenterology, Humans, Natural Language Processing, 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