Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
Artif Intell Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 8, 2026; 7(2): 121109
Published online Sep 8, 2026. doi: 10.37126/aige.121109
Published online Sep 8, 2026. doi: 10.37126/aige.121109
Table 2 Prospective checklist for advancing an endoscopic artificial intelligence system to the next tier
| Question | Why it matters | Minimum evidence before advancing tier |
| Does the system improve a clinically meaningful endpoint rather than only image-level accuracy | Detection gains may not translate into patient benefit if they mainly increase low-value findings | At least one prospective study with workflow-relevant outcomes; tier 1 requires multicenter randomized or pooled randomized evidence |
| Is there a clear action pathway once the AI output is generated | Outputs without downstream decisions create ambiguity, delay, and liability risk | Explicit linkage between AI output and biopsy, resection, documentation, referral, or review pathway |
| Has performance been shown outside the development environment | Single-center or single-vendor success often overestimates real-world performance | External validation across centres, operators, and ideally more than one hardware ecosystem |
| Will deployment preserve safe human performance | Automation bias and deskilling can offset technical gains | Human-factors plan with onboarding, override logging, periodic AI-off benchmarking, and monitoring of behaviour-level metrics |
| Is governance defined before launch | Undefined responsibility undermines adoption and patient safety | Named accountability, update policy, discordant-case review, and AI-specific protocol or reporting aligned with CONSORT-AI or DECIDE-AI when applicable |
| Is post-deployment monitoring specified | Static pre-deployment evidence cannot detect drift, latency issues, or workflow changes | Named metrics, review frequency, trigger thresholds, rollback or recalibration plan, and change-control policy consistent with lifecycle guidance |
| Is the dataset and validation geography sufficiently representative | Geographic and demographic concentration limits generalizability and equity | Evidence of representation across populations, settings, and device environments relevant to intended deployment |
| Is the system economically and operationally sustainable | Clinical value may be offset by cost, follow-up burden, or proprietary infrastructure constraints | Context-specific implementation plan addressing costs, maintenance, reimbursement, and downstream utilization |
- Citation: Boppana SH, Chandrashekar A, Sunkesula V. From hype to clinical translation: A tiered, readiness-based framework for artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Artif Intell Gastrointest Endosc 2026; 7(2): 121109
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2689-7164/full/v7/i2/121109.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37126/aige.121109