A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Evaluating the Effectiveness and Integration Obstacles of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within Anesthesia Departments.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is a multidisciplinary field focusing on expanding and generating intelligent computer algorithms to carry out simple to more complex tasks traditionally performed using human intelligence. In anesthesia, AI is rapidly becoming a transformative technology. However, its efficacy in anesthesia is still unknown. Therefore, the current study analyzed the efficacy of AI in anesthesia by studying two main applications of AI, i.e., predicting events related to anesthesia and assisting anesthesia-related procedures. Furthermore, this study explored some of the challenges of integrating AI in the anesthesia field. Methods PubMed, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched for articles relevant to the objective of the current study. The Comprehensive Meta-analysis software and STATA 16.0 were used for statistical analyses, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality evaluation. Results Twenty studies satisfying the eligibility criteria were used for review and analysis. A subgroup analysis showed that models incorporating machine learning algorithms were superior in predicting postinduction hypotension (AUROC: 0.93). ANN and SANN models also showed a good discriminatory capacity in predicting postinduction hypotension (AUROC: 0.82 and 0.80, respectively). Similarly, the subgroup analysis showed that ANN and GBM models had a good discriminatory capacity when predicting hypoxemia (AUROC: 0.8 and 0.81, respectively). Furthermore, SVM, ANN, and fuzzy logic models had a relatively good differentiation ability in predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (AUROC: 0.93, 0.77, and 0.72, respectively). On the other hand, the subgroup analysis showed that robotically-assisted tracheal intubations were highly successful in both mannikins and humans (success rate: 98% and 92%, respectively). Similarly, robotically-assisted ultrasound-guided nerve blocks were highly successful in mannikins and humans (Success rate: 96% for humans and mannikins, respectively). Conclusion The current study suggests that AI is useful in predicting anesthesia-related events and automating procedures such as tracheal intubation and ultrasound-guided nerve block. However, there are multiple barriers hindering the integration of AI in anesthesia that need to be addressed.
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 | 0.020 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".