MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404155412 · doi:10.1177/22925503241292349

Integrating AI into Breast Reconstruction Surgery: Exploring Opportunities, Applications, and Challenges

2024· review· en· W4404155412 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast reconstructionBreast surgeryMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly influenced various sectors, including healthcare, by enhancing machine capabilities in assisting with human tasks. In surgical fields, where precision and timely decision-making are crucial, AI's integration could revolutionize clinical quality and health resource optimization. This study explores the current and future applications of AI technologies in reconstructive breast surgery, aiming for broader implementation. Methods: We conducted systematic reviews through PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using relevant keywords and MeSH terms. The focus was on the main AI subdisciplines: machine learning, computer vision, natural language processing, and robotics. This review includes studies discussing AI applications across preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and academic settings in breast plastic surgery. Results: AI is currently utilized preoperatively to predict surgical risks and outcomes, enhancing patient counseling and informed consent processes. During surgery, AI supports the identification of anatomical landmarks and dissection strategies and provides 3-dimensional visualizations. Robotic applications are promising for procedures like microsurgical anastomoses, flap harvesting, and dermal matrix anchoring. Postoperatively, AI predicts discharge times and customizes follow-up schedules, which improves resource allocation and patient management at home. Academically, AI offers personalized training feedback to surgical trainees and aids research in breast reconstruction. Despite these advancements, concerns regarding privacy, costs, and operational efficacy persist and are critically examined in this review. Conclusions: The application of AI in breast plastic and reconstructive surgery presents substantial benefits and diverse potentials. However, much remains to be explored and developed. This study aims to consolidate knowledge and encourage ongoing research and development within the field, thereby empowering the plastic surgery community to leverage AI technologies effectively and responsibly for advancing breast reconstruction 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.603
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.174 · 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