Evidence Hub

Artificial Intelligence-Guided Bronchoscopy is Superior to Human Expert Instruction for the Performance of Critical-Care Physicians: A Randomized Controlled Trial

K. Agbontaen, K. Cold, D. Woods, V. Grover, H. S. Aboumarie, S. Kaul, Lars Konge, Suveer Singh

Critical Care Medicine, 2025

21 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Bronchoscopy in the mechanically ventilated patient is an important skill for critical-care physicians. However, training opportunity is heterogenous and limited by infrequent caseload or inadequate instructor feedback for satisfactory competencies. A new artificial intelligence (AI) navigational system using augmented reality – the Ambu Broncho Simulator – can guide bronchoscopy training. Is training with the AI system comparable to bedside, expert tutor instruction in improving bronchoscopy performance? DESIGN: A nonblinded, parallel group randomized controlled trial was conducted. SETTING: The study was conducted in a simulated setting at an academic university hospital. SUBJECTS: Critical-care physicians were invited to take part in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Forty participants received 30 minutes of bronchoscopy training, either guided by AI only (artificial intelligence group [AIG]) or by expert tutor feedback (expert tutor group [ETG]). All participants performed a final full navigation bronchoscopy performance test and completed a cognitive load questionnaire, the NASA Task Load Index . MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean intersegmental time (MIT = PT/DC), diagnostic completeness (DC), procedure time (PT), structured progress (SP), and number of segments revisited (SR) were measured. The primary outcome measure assessed was MIT, a measure of bronchoscopic performance efficiency. The secondary outcome measures were DC, PT, SP, and SR. Nineteen participants…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 21 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free