A systematic review on artificial intelligence in robot-assisted surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the extensive published literature on the significant potential of artificial intelligence (AI) there are no reports on its efficacy in improving patient safety in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). The purposes of this work are to systematically review the published literature on AI in RAS, and to identify and discuss current limitations and challenges. Materials and methods A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEExplore according to PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible articles were peer-review studies published in English language from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Amstar 2 was used for quality assessment. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa Quality assessment tool. Data of the studies were visually presented in tables using SPIDER tool. Results Thirty-five publications, representing 3436 patients, met the search criteria and were included in the analysis. The selected reports concern: motion analysis (n = 17), urology (n = 12), gynecology (n = 1), other specialties (n = 1), training (n = 3), and tissue retraction (n = 1). Precision for surgical tools detection varied from 76.0% to 90.6%. Mean absolute error on prediction of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) ranged from 85.9 to 134.7 days. Accuracy on prediction of length of stay after RARP was 88.5%. Accuracy on recognition of the next surgical task during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) achieved 75.7%. Conclusion The reviewed studies were of low quality. The findings are limited by the small size of the datasets. Comparison between studies on the same topic was restricted due to algorithms and datasets heterogeneity. There is no proof that currently AI can identify the critical tasks of RAS operations, which determine patient outcome. There is an urgent need for studies on large datasets and external validation of the AI algorithms used. Furthermore, the results should be transparent and meaningful to surgeons, enabling them to inform patients in layman’s words. Registration Review Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry1225. Highlights Several limitations and technical issues were found in the reviewed published studies. There is no proof that currently AI can recognize critical tasks of RAS operations. Studies on large datasets together with external validation of AI algorithms are needed. More transparent results are needed, which are meaningful to surgeons in future publications on AI. A glossary and an appendix for better understanding of the AI terms have been added.
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 | 0.015 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".