ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2026
Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis of Esophageal Manometry: A Narrative Review.
Review in Current gastroenterology 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewHigh-resolution manometry (HRM), the gold standard for diagnosing esophageal motility disorders, remains constrained by inter-rater variability, limited access to expert esophagologists, and inadequate training infrastructure. Many gastroenterology fellowship programs provide insufficient motility training, and dedicated expert centers remain geographically concentrated. Emerging Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have the potential to automate diagnosis, and augment clinician interpretive capacity and democratizing expert-level motility assessment. RECENT
findingsTwenty-two studies encompassing over 5,000 patients were synthesized across three overlapping developmental phases: early machine learning for feature extraction and classification; deep learning deployed toward automated pattern recognition and motility classification and emerging multimodal and large language model-based frameworks augmenting clinical interpretation and decision-making, with diagnostic accuracies ranging from 71 to 97%. AI integration of multimodal manometric data may reveal pressure signatures imperceptible to human visual inspection, pointing toward phenotypes beyond the Chicago Classification. No study has yet demonstrated improved patient outcomes. AI's role in motility training remains largely unexplored. The AI-clinician partnership represents the most promising trajectory for esophageal manometry interpretation in coming years. AI-augmented interpretation has the potential to eliminate the two-tier diagnostic gap between academic and community practice, to accelerate trainee competency through scalable AI-supervised case libraries, and to uncover physiologic phenotypes beyond human interpretation.
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.