MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229063503 · doi:10.26685/urncst.333

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Flap Outcomes in Plastic Surgery: Protocol of a Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4229063503 on OpenAlexaff
Sabreena Moosa, Robert Dydynsky

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)MEDLINESystematic reviewIntensive care medicineSurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Free flap surgery encompasses reconstruction of diverse tissue defects. Flap failure and complications such as infection and ischemia remain a concern following flap surgery, with the current post-operative standard of care being frequent bedside monitoring. Artificial intelligence such as machine learning models could help support surgeons in postoperative monitoring and predicting complications. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the framework for a review analyzing the existing literature behind the use of artificial intelligence in assessing flap surgery outcomes and predicting postoperative complications. Methods: A systematic review will be conducted using EMBASE and MEDLINE (1974 to October 2021) to identify relevant literature. This will include studies investigating Artificial Intelligence and machine learning models used in the postoperative setting of flap surgery. Primary outcomes will include evaluating the accuracy of evaluating outcomes following flap surgery based on these models, including: flap success, healing and complications up to 1 month following surgery. Secondary outcomes include the analysis of benefits and drawbacks of using machine learning models for outcomes following flap surgery. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers; risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with methodological quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Discussion: This protocol will provide the framework for a review summarizing the current literature exploring the role of Artificial Intelligence for flap surgery outcomes. Results will help provide surgeons with an overview of current applications and identify areas of potential further research and development. Conclusion: As current clinical practice is regular bedside monitoring, integrating Artificial Intelligence could make the process more efficient, accurate and safer for patients and reduce labour burden or healthcare system costs. This review can help identify areas of potential and improvement which could further aid achieving successful outcomes following flap surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.348
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207