The cardiac surgeon's guide to artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Artificial intelligence is the ability for machines to perform intelligent tasks. Artificial intelligence is already penetrating many aspects of medicine including cardiac surgery. Here, we offer a platform introduction to artificial intelligence for cardiac surgeons to understand the implementations of this transformative tool. RECENT FINDINGS: Artificial intelligence has contributed greatly to the automation of cardiac imaging, including echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, cardiac MRI and most recently, in radiomics. There are also several artificial intelligence based clinical prediction tools that predict complex outcomes after cardiac surgery. Waveform analysis, specifically, automated electrocardiogram analysis, has seen significant strides with promise in wearables and remote monitoring. Experimentally, artificial intelligence has also entered the operating room in the form of augmented reality and automated robotic surgery. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence has many potential exciting applications in cardiac surgery. It can streamline physician workload and help make medicine more human again by placing the physician back at the bedside. Here, we offer cardiac surgeons an introduction to this transformative tool so that they may actively participate in creating clinically relevant implementations to improve our practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".