Assessing the level of expertise of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps-not every expert is an expert
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
No universal definition for expertise or experts versus nonexperts exists, which might be a reason for the differences in results.
“No universal definition for expertise or experts versus nonexperts exists, which might be a reason for the differences in results.20”
From Appropriate trust in artificial intelligence for the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps: the role of human/artificial intelligence interaction (2024) · cites this paper as [20]
In the Dear Editors section (page unavailable), the paper says that definitions of expert and nonexpert endoscopists are not standardized, supporting the first part of the claim. It notes variability in optical diagnosis, but does not say that differing definitions explain differences in results. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Armstrong HK, et al. Gastroenterology 2023;164: 228-240.
- Zallot C, et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:66-72.
- Armstrong H, et al. Front Pediatr 2020;8:620189.
- Sigall Boneh R, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19:752-759.
- Gibson GR, et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 14:491-502.
- von Martels JZH, et al. J Crohns Colitis 2020; 14:595-607.
- Benjamin JL, et al. Gut 2011;60:923-929. References
- Rex DK, et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2011; 73:419-422.
- Hassan C, et al. Gastroenterology 2023;164:467-469.e4.
- Rees CJ, et al. Gut 2017;66:887-895.
- Sekiguchi M, et al. Gastroenterology 2023;164:293-295. e4.
- Biffi C, et al. NPJ Digit Med 2022;5:84.
- Mesejo P, et al. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2016; 35:2051-2063.
- Rondonotti E, et al. Endoscopy 2022;54:1171-1179.
- Dekker E, et al. Endoscopy 2020;52:899-923.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
van der Zander, Q. E. W., Roumans, R., Kusters, C. H. J., Dehghani, N., Masclee, A. A. M., de With, P. H. N., van der Sommen, F., Snijders, C. C. P., & Schoon, E. J. (2024) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2024.06.029 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- van der Zander, Q. E. W., van der Sommen, F., & Schoon, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Venue
- Gastroenterology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-08
- Volume
- 165
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 517-518
- ISSN
- 0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4316036289
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- KWF Kankerbestrijding
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
- Keywords
- diminutive colorectal polyps, optical diagnostics, endoscopist expertise, computer-aided diagnosis, artificial intelligence, surveillance interval
- MeSH terms
- Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Intestinal Polyposis, Narrow Band Imaging
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
