MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395033826 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1783486

Patients’ sentiments on artificial intelligence in endoscopy: A large-scale intercontinental opinion survey

2024· article· en· W4395033826 on OpenAlexaff
Jeroen de Groof, Omer F. Ahmad, Megan Engels, Sanne A. Hoogenboom, Nayantara Coelho–Prabhu, Honggang Yu, Michael Mwachiro, Sravanthi Parasa, Ricardo Mansilla, Junaid Mushtaq, Helmut Neumann, Shyam Thakkar, Michael F. Byrne, Jeanin E. van Hooft, Y. Tomonori

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScale (ratio)Artificial intelligenceEndoscopyData scienceRadiologyComputer scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims In recent years, the number of clinical studies evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) systems in endoscopy has increased. Authorities encourage integration of patients’ thoughts in development of innovative medical interventions to allow their patient-friendly implementation. However, little is known about patient perception regarding AI in endoscopy. Methods A prospective questionnaire study was conducted as part of the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) AI committee activities. The committee developed 13 statements on the use of AI in endoscopy which were distributed to patients using a dedicated online survey platform. To avoid potential selection bias, the questionnaires were distributed equally to each of the six continents in the World. Patients responded to each of the statements by using a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Results In total, 1,237 patients completed the survey (>200 per continent). The majority of patients believed that humans and AI can complement each other (74.3% agreed) and would support its use (75.5% agreed). However, fewer patients believed that an AI system could be better than experienced endoscopists (38.2% agreed) and endoscopists should remain responsible for decision making (92.3% agreed). The majority of patients believed that endoscopists or hospitals should be liable for medical malpractice induced by the use of AI (76.9% agreed). Conclusions This large-scale international survey performed by the WEO AI committee revealed an obvious trend that patients appreciated benefit of using AI in endoscopy but did not blindly rely on the technology, leaving endoscopists and hospitals responsible for decision making and liability issues. Publication History Article published online: 15 April 2024 © 2024. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207