First deployment of artificial intelligence recommendations in orthopedic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scant research has delved into the non-clinical facets of artificial intelligence (AI), concentrating on leveraging data to enhance the efficiency of healthcare systems and operating rooms. Notably, there is a gap in the literature regarding the implementation and outcomes of AI solutions. The absence of published results demonstrating the practical application and effectiveness of AI in domains beyond clinical settings, particularly in the field of surgery, served as the impetus for our undertaking in this area. Within the realm of non-clinical strategies aimed at enhancing operating room efficiency, we characterize OR efficiency as the capacity to successfully perform four uncomplicated arthroplasty surgeries within an 8-h timeframe. This Community Case Study addresses this gap by presenting the results of incorporating AI recommendations at our clinical institute on 228 patient arthroplasty surgeries. The implementation of a prescriptive analytics system (PAS), utilizing supervised machine learning techniques, led to a significant improvement in the overall efficiency of the operating room, increasing it from 39 to 93%. This noteworthy achievement highlights the impact of AI in optimizing surgery workflows.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".