Perceptions of Canadian vascular surgeons toward artificial intelligence and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are rapidly advancing fields with increasing utility in health care. We conducted a survey to determine the perceptions of Canadian vascular surgeons toward AI/ML. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to 162 members of the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery. Self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions with respect to potential applications, limitations, and facilitators of AI/ML were assessed. Results: Overall, 50 of the 162 Canadian vascular surgeons (31%) responded to the survey. Most respondents were aged 30 to 59 years (72%), male (80%), and White (67%) and practiced in academic settings (72%). One half of the participants reported that their knowledge of AI/ML was poor or very poor. Most were excited or very excited about AI/ML (66%) and were interested or very interested in learning more about the field (83.7%). The respondents believed that AI/ML would be useful or very useful for diagnosis (62%), prognosis (72%), patient selection (56%), image analysis (64%), intraoperative guidance (52%), research (88%), and education (80%). The limitations that the participants were most concerned about were errors leading to patient harm (42%), bias based on patient demographics (42%), and lack of clinician knowledge and skills in AI/ML (40%). Most were not concerned or were mildly concerned about job replacement (86%). The factors that were most important to encouraging clinicians to use AI/ML models were improvements in efficiency (88%), accurate predictions (84%), and ease of use (84%). The comments from respondents focused on the pressing need for the implementation of AI/ML in vascular surgery owing to the potential to improve care delivery. Conclusions: Canadian vascular surgeons have positive views on AI/ML and believe this technology can be applied to multiple aspects of the specialty to improve patient care, research, and education. Current self-reported knowledge is poor, although interest was expressed in learning more about the field. The facilitators and barriers to the effective use of AI/ML identified in the present study can guide future development of these tools in vascular 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".