On-demand — Precision dosing for gastroenterology and hepatology teams

Recent studies suggest that variability between operators remains a key limitation, with meaningful differences between subgroups. According to consensus recommendations, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, and this trend is expected to continue. When protocols are compared, variability between operators remains a key limitation, pending validation in prospective studies. In routine practice, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, although confirmatory data are still limited.

According to consensus recommendations, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Contrary to earlier assumptions, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, although confirmatory data are still limited. In multidisciplinary settings, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, although confirmatory data are still limited.

Longitudinal data show that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Contrary to earlier assumptions, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. From a workflow perspective, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Emerging evidence indicates that threshold harmonization is still an open question, with meaningful differences between subgroups. From a workflow perspective, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, pending validation in prospective studies.