ArticleJPGN reports2026
Assessing pediatric gastroenterologists' use of artificial intelligence in clinical and professional tasks.
Article in JPGN reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated potential to enhance clinical efficiency. However, its real-world adoption among pediatric gastroenterologists (GIs) remains poorly characterized. The primary objective of this study was to assess how pediatric GIs are currently utilizing AI. Secondary objectives included estimating time saved, identifying commonly used tools, and evaluating the impact on burnout. Methods: An institutional review board-approved anonymous survey was distributed via the international pediatric gastroenterology listserv. The questionnaire assessed demographics, types of AI technologies utilized, and estimated time saved through their use. The survey was open from September 30, 2025, to October 28, 2025. Results: One-hundred and twenty-nine completed surveys were included in the analysis. Majority of respondents were from the United States (85.3%). AI was most frequently used for ambient AI scribes, dictation, answering clinical questions, preparing letters of medical necessity, and insurance appeals, with many reporting time savings with use of AI. In addition, 58.1% of respondents had utilized AI for some research-related purpose. AI utilization did not vary significantly across years of practice or practice type. Clinicians who utilized AI technology had higher frequency of self-reported reduced burnout. Few (28.7%) received training in AI, while the majority (84.4%) would like more education in the use of AI in practice. Conclusions: The use of AI tools by pediatric GIs is variable. Those who adopted AI reported reduced burnout and increased time savings, reflecting a positive impact on efficiency and clinician well-being. Despite limited formal training, there was a strong interest in AI education and clinical integration.
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.