Citations

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.

Importance and Objective: Menopause is the natural cessation of ovarian function, typically occurring at a mean age of 52 years in the United States. Vasomotor symptoms (VMS; hot flashes and night sweats) affect over 75% of midlife women and typically last 7 to 9 years, with only 54% seeking medical attention. Although hormone therapy is the most effective treatment for VMS, <4% of women currently use it, primarily due to safety concerns. There is evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective management strategy for VMS. Virtual reality (VR) has shown promise in delivering an immersive form of CBT for various medical conditions, including acute and chronic pain, sleep, and mood disorders, potentially overcoming barriers such as access and cost while improving quality of life. This narrative review aims to summarize the existing literature on VR for managing menopause symptoms. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted through PubMed and Medline databases. The search focused on keyword combinations related to VR, artificial intelligence, and menopause symptoms. Discussion and Conclusion: The search yielded one study specifically targeting symptoms related to menopause. A pilot study (n = 42) evaluating an immersive VR and artificial intelligence intervention based on CBT and mindfulness techniques for managing hot flashes in women with breast or ovarian cancer demonstrated a significant reduction in frequency of hot flashes ( P < 0.01) and improvements in sleep quality, mood, anxiety, stress, and overall quality of life. However, these women experienced hot flashes that might have been associated with their cancer diagnosis or treatment rather than relating specifically to menopause, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to women with menopause symptoms. Although VR has shown effectiveness in delivering CBT for other conditions, there remains a significant gap in research on its specific use for menopause-related symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the efficacy and safety of virtual reality (VR) for functional dyspepsia. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 between active vs sham VR. Symptoms were assessed using the Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM) over 2-week. RESULTS: Patients in the active VR group had greater numerical improvement in PAGI-SYM scores (mean difference −0.7; P < 0.001) compared with sham VR (mean difference −0.4; P = 0.032). Active VR led to significant improvements for all PAGI-SYM subscales, except lower abdominal pain, whereas sham only improved heartburn/regurgitation and nausea/vomiting. Half of the total patients reported nonserious adverse effects, although only 1 patient withdrew from the study because of adverse effects. DISCUSSION: VR is safe and results in significant symptom improvement in functional dyspepsia. Larger trials are warranted.

INTRODUCTION: To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me (ibdandme.org)—a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. METHODS: We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus—a multicenter adult IBD learning health system—between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0–100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD. DISCUSSION: No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.