The Development of Electronic Health and Artificial Intelligence in Surgery after the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic—A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has significantly transformed the healthcare environment, and it has triggered the development of electronic health and artificial intelligence mechanisms, for instance. In this overview, we concentrated on enhancing the two concepts in surgery after the pandemic, and we examined the factors on a global scale. OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this scoping review is to elaborate on how surgeons have used eHealth and AI before; during; and after the current global pandemic. More specifically, this review focuses on the empowerment of the concepts of electronic health and artificial intelligence after the pandemic; which mainly depend on the efforts of countries to advance the notions of surgery. DESIGN: The use of an online search engine was the most applied method. The publication years of all the studies included in the study ranged from 2013 to 2021. Out of the reviewed studies; forty-four qualified for inclusion in the review. DISCUSSION: We evaluated the prevalence of the concepts in different continents such as the United States; Europe; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa. Our research reveals that the success of eHealth and artificial intelligence adoption primarily depends on the efforts of countries to advance the notions in surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The study's primary limitation is insufficient information on eHealth and artificial intelligence concepts; particularly in developing nations. Future research should focus on establishing methods of handling eHealth and AI challenges around confidentiality and data security.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".