ReviewAnnals of coloproctology2026
Artificial intelligence in anal fistula: mapping evidence to IDEAL stages.
Review in Annals of coloproctology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tract de-epithelialization with internal orifice closure: a sphincter-sparing fistula-in-ano repair: DOCS-FR.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Revisiting the 'surgeon in the loop': From deskilling to human-AI collaboration.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Clinical utility beyond detection rates: Interpreting artificial intelligence in FIT-positive colonoscopy.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Advancing as an international journal: a new chapter for Annals of Coloproctology.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in colorectal and anorectal surgery, particularly for complex conditions such as anal fistula (AF). Conventional diagnostic and therapeutic approaches remain limited by intricate anatomy, high recurrence risk, and the need to preserve continence. This narrative review, evaluates the role of AI in AF and related anorectal disorders, with evidence mapped to the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term follow-up) framework (stages 1-4, with stage 2 subdivided into 2a and 2b). Relevant literature was identified through targeted searches of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Studies investigating AI applications in AF or related anorectal conditions, including imaging, surgical planning, predictive modeling, and functional assessment, were included. Evidence was categorized according to IDEAL stages, ranging from proof-of-concept to long-term quality assurance. AI demonstrates potential across 4 key domains: (1) preoperative imaging (stages 1-2b); (2) intraoperative planning and assistance (stages 1-2a); (3) predictive modeling (stages 2a-2b); and (4) broader anorectal applications, including anorectal manometry and the EndoFLIP (endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe) procedure (stages 1-2b). Feasibility studies report high diagnostic performance, particularly for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography-based deep learning models; however, these findings are constrained by small sample sizes, limited external validation, and challenges related to workflow integration. Overall, AI has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, surgical planning, and functional assessment in AF and related disorders. However, most studies remain within early IDEAL stages (1-2b), highlighting the need for multicenter validation, cost-effectiveness analyses, and robust ethical frameworks before widespread clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.