Loufek, Brenna

INTRODUCTION: High-quality colonoscopy requires accurate risk stratification for surveillance per the 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force guidelines and adherence to 2024 American College of Gastroenterology/American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality benchmarks. Both are operationally challenging in clinical practice. We developed and validated Colon-Pilot, a large language model—powered clinical decision support system using GPT-4o to automate and standardize both functions. METHODS: The system was evaluated in 2 operational modes: (i) a human-in-the-loop clinical decision support validation of surveillance recommendations for 596 colonoscopies, comparing concordance with 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force guidelines against expert consensus, and (ii) an automated administrative audit applying Colon-Pilot to 42,632 colonoscopies across the Mayo Clinic Health System to calculate 2024 American College of Gastroenterology/American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy priority quality indicators. Recommendations were autogenerated unless predefined safety criteria triggered manual review. RESULTS: Colon-Pilot issued recommendations for 522 of 596 cases (87.6%) and flagged 12.4% for manual review. For automated cases, guideline-concordant accuracy was 97.5% (Cohen κ = 0.970) versus 69.7% (κ = 0.781) for original endoscopist recommendations. Discordant artificial intelligence (AI) cases (n = 13) most often recommended longer-than-appropriate intervals (62%). Applied to the enterprise data set, Colon-Pilot calculated performance exceeding 2024 targets: adenoma detection rate 49.8% (≥35%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate 17.7% (≥6%), bowel preparation adequacy 91.8% (≥90%), and cecal intubation rate 97.4% (≥95%). DISCUSSION: Colon-Pilot demonstrated high fidelity in applying surveillance guidelines and automated quality benchmarking, outperforming unassisted endoscopists in guideline adherence. By combining safety protocols with large-scale automated reporting, it offers a scalable solution for improving both efficiency and quality in colorectal cancer prevention.

Abstract Objectives Surface the urgent dilemma that healthcare delivery organizations (HDOs) face navigating the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final guidance on the use of clinical decision support (CDS) software. Materials and Methods We use sepsis as a case study to highlight the patient safety and regulatory compliance tradeoffs that 6129 hospitals in the United States must navigate. Results Sepsis CDS remains in broad, routine use. There is no commercially available sepsis CDS system that is FDA cleared as a medical device. There is no public disclosure of an HDO turning off sepsis CDS due to regulatory compliance concerns. And there is no public disclosure of FDA enforcement action against an HDO for using sepsis CDS that is not cleared as a medical device. Discussion and Conclusion We present multiple policy interventions that would relieve the current tension to enable HDOs to utilize artificial intelligence to improve patient care while also addressing FDA concerns about product safety, efficacy, and equity.