A Review on the Current Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Operating Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era upcoming in medicine and, more recently, in the operating room (OR). Existing literature elaborates mainly on the future possibilities and expectations for AI in surgery. The aim of this study is to systematically provide an overview of the current actual AI applications used to support processes inside the OR. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore were searched using inclusion criteria for relevant articles up to August 25th, 2020. No study types were excluded beforehand. Articles describing current AI applications for surgical purposes inside the OR were reviewed. Results. Nine studies were included. An overview of the researched and described applications of AI in the OR is provided, including procedure duration prediction, gesture recognition, intraoperative cancer detection, intraoperative video analysis, workflow recognition, an endoscopic guidance system, knot-tying, and automatic registration and tracking of the bone in orthopedic surgery. These technologies are compared to their, often non-AI, baseline alternatives. Conclusions. Currently described applications of AI in the OR are limited to date. They may, however, have a promising future in improving surgical precision, reduce manpower, support intraoperative decision-making, and increase surgical safety. Nonetheless, the application and implementation of AI inside the OR still has several challenges to overcome. Clear regulatory, organizational, and clinical conditions are imperative for AI to redeem its promise. Future research on use of AI in the OR should therefore focus on clinical validation of AI applications, the legal and ethical considerations, and on evaluation of implementation trajectory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".