Schnoy, Elisabeth

ABSTRACT Objective Despite high stand‐alone performance, studies demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI)‐supported endoscopic diagnostics often fall short in clinical applications due to human‐AI interaction factors. This video‐based trial on Barrett's esophagus aimed to investigate how examiner behavior, their levels of confidence, and system usability influence the diagnostic outcomes of AI‐assisted endoscopy. Methods The present analysis employed data from a multicenter randomized controlled tandem video trial involving 22 endoscopists with varying degrees of expertise. Participants were tasked with evaluating a set of 96 endoscopic videos of Barrett's esophagus in two distinct rounds, with and without AI assistance. Diagnostic confidence levels were recorded, and decision changes were categorized according to the AI prediction. Additional surveys assessed user experience and system usability ratings. Results AI assistance significantly increased examiner confidence levels ( p < 0.001) and accuracy. Withdrawing AI assistance decreased confidence ( p < 0.001), but not accuracy. Experts consistently reported higher confidence than non‐experts ( p < 0.001), regardless of performance. Despite improved confidence, correct AI guidance was disregarded in 16% of all cases, and 9% of initially correct diagnoses were changed to incorrect ones. Overreliance on AI, algorithm aversion, and uncertainty in AI predictions were identified as key factors influencing outcomes. The System Usability Scale questionnaire scores indicated good to excellent usability, with non‐experts scoring 73.5 and experts 85.6. Conclusions Our findings highlight the pivotal function of examiner behavior in AI‐assisted endoscopy. To fully realize the benefits of AI, implementing explainable AI, improving user interfaces, and providing targeted training are essential. Addressing these factors could enhance diagnostic accuracy and confidence in clinical practice.

Abstract Background This study evaluated the effect of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support system on the performance and diagnostic confidence of endoscopists in their assessment of Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Methods 96 standardized endoscopy videos were assessed by 22 endoscopists with varying degrees of BE experience from 12 centers. Assessment was randomized into two video sets: group A (review first without AI and second with AI) and group B (review first with AI and second without AI). Endoscopists were required to evaluate each video for the presence of Barrett’s esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) and then decide on a spot for a targeted biopsy. After the second assessment, they were allowed to change their clinical decision and confidence level. Results AI had a stand-alone sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.2%, 68.9%, and 81.3%, respectively. Without AI, BE experts had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 83.3%, 58.1%, and 71.5%, respectively. With AI, BE nonexperts showed a significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity when videos were assessed a second time with AI (sensitivity 69.8% [95%CI 65.2%–74.2%] to 78.0% [95%CI 74.0%–82.0%]; specificity 67.3% [95%CI 62.5%–72.2%] to 72.7% [95%CI 68.2%–77.3%]). In addition, the diagnostic confidence of BE nonexperts improved significantly with AI. Conclusion BE nonexperts benefitted significantly from additional AI. BE experts and nonexperts remained significantly below the stand-alone performance of AI, suggesting that there may be other factors influencing endoscopists’ decisions to follow or discard AI advice.