Afzali, Anita

INTRODUCTION: The American College of Gastroenterology assembled a multidisciplinary task force to evaluate the current state and future direction of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy leading to the development of consensus-based recommendations for responsible AI integration in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 32 subject-matter experts and 12 industry partners, representing diverse practice settings and expertise, conducted subgroup literature reviews across 5 key areas (endoscopy, practice management clinical applications, training and education, inflammatory bowel disease and liver disease, ethics and equity). Draft statements were developed and rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a modified Delphi process. A consensus was set at ≥70% combined agreement. Nonconsensus items were revised and revoted electronically. RESULTS: A total of 43 statements, 40 (93%) reached consensus in round 1 and the remaining 3 achieved consensus after round 2. Evidence supports computer-aided detection improving adenoma detection rate and miss rate in controlled studies, with mixed real-world impact and insufficient long-term outcomes (e.g., interval colon cancer rate). Recommendations emphasize thorough validation and reduction of bias by heterogeneous Data sets. Outside endoscopy, ambient AI scribes, natural language processing (NLP)-enabled coding, workflow optimization, and previous authorization support show potential. Training recommendations endorse a structured AI curriculum while preserving independent procedural competence to avoid deskilling. In inflammatory bowel disease and hepatology, AI could help improve diagnostic accuracy, help predict risk of disease progression, and help guide therapy. Equity, governance, and reimbursement statements call for chain-of-custody data protections, specialty-society oversight, and payment models that reward quality and cost reduction. DISCUSSION: This consensus outlines how AI can augment rather than replace clinical expertise while promoting safety, transparency, interoperability, and equity. Priorities include pragmatic and prospective trials, multi-institutional data-sharing consortia, bias mitigation, and workforce training to enable trustworthy and clinically impactful AI adoption in gastroenterology, liver, and endoscopy care.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and prior biologic failure may have reduced or delayed efficacy with subsequent advanced therapies. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ozanimod during the True North (TN) study and its open-label extension (OLE) in biologic-exposed patients with UC. METHODS: TN was a randomized, placebo-controlled 52-week trial (10-week induction, 42-week maintenance period). Eligible patients could enter the OLE. Clinical outcomes were assessed at TN week (W) 10 and W52 and OLE W46 and W94. Symptomatic efficacy was evaluated through induction and in the OLE until W94. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: This analysis included 376 biologic-exposed patients. In the placebo-controlled cohort, more ozanimod-treated patients achieved clinical response than placebo at W10 regardless of the number or type of prior biologics; patients who used 1 vs ≥2 prior biologics achieved higher efficacy rates. Efficacy rates were higher at W52 than W10 and were similar across subgroups regardless of the number or type of prior biologics. Significantly greater proportions of ozanimod vs placebo patients achieved symptomatic response by W5 ( P = 0.0173) and symptomatic remission by W10 ( P = 0.0207). Among biologic-exposed TN W10 ozanimod nonresponders who entered the OLE, 61% achieved symptomatic response with an extra 10 weeks of ozanimod treatment. Ozanimod efficacy was durable for ∼3 years of continuous treatment in biologic-exposed W52 clinical responders who entered the OLE. No new safety signals were observed. DISCUSSION: Ozanimod was effective and safe in biologic-exposed patients with UC, but these patients may require more time to respond to treatment. Clinical trial registry website and trial numbers: ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02435992 and NCT02531126.