ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2020
Intelligent, Autonomous Machines in Surgery.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Advent of Artificial Intelligence into Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review of Our Understanding.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Agent Transparency, Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Operator Performance: A Systematic Literature Review.Human factors · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- The surgeon's existential crisis: challenges and the threat to the profession.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tissue Engineering: Biological Principles, Engineered Substitutes, and Preclinical Outcomes.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in surgical medicine: a brief review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Robotic versus Mini-Laparoscopic Colposacropexy to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study and a Medicolegal Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Acceptance of AI in Health Care for Short- and Long-Term Treatments: Pilot Development Study of an Integrated Theoretical Model.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Autonomous Robotic Surgery: Has the Future Arrived?Cureus · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence and automation in endoscopy and surgery.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Review
- Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Article
- Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of artificial intelligence in emergency and trauma surgery, the ARIES project: an international web-based survey.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2022Article
- Why non-technical skills matter in surgery. New paradigms for surgical leaders.Discover health systems · 2022Article
- The use and future perspective of Artificial Intelligence-A survey among German surgeons.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence technologies and compassion in healthcare: A systematic scoping review.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Please mind the gap-about equity and access to care in oncology.ESMO open · 2021Article
- Requirement of artificial intelligence technology awareness for thoracic surgeons.The cardiothoracic surgeon · 2021Review
- The Increasing Role of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Will Robots Replace Doctors in the Future?International journal of general medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Surgeons perform two primary tasks: operating and engaging patients and caregivers in shared decision-making. Human dexterity and decision-making are biologically limited. Intelligent, autonomous machines have the potential to augment or replace surgeons. Rather than regarding this possibility with denial, ire, or indifference, surgeons should understand and steer these technologies. Closer examination of surgical innovations and lessons learned from the automotive industry can inform this process. Innovations in minimally invasive surgery and surgical decision-making follow classic S-shaped curves with three phases: (1) introduction of a new technology, (2) achievement of a performance advantage relative to existing standards, and (3) arrival at a performance plateau, followed by replacement with an innovation featuring greater machine autonomy and less human influence. There is currently no level I evidence demonstrating improved patient outcomes using intelligent, autonomous machines for performing operations or surgical decision-making tasks. History suggests that if such evidence emerges and if the machines are cost effective, then they will augment or replace humans, initially for simple, common, rote tasks under close human supervision and later for complex tasks with minimal human supervision. This process poses ethical challenges in assigning liability for errors, matching decisions to patient values, and displacing human workers, but may allow surgeons to spend less time gathering and analyzing data and more time interacting with patients and tending to urgent, critical-and potentially more valuable-aspects of patient care. Surgeons should steer these technologies toward optimal patient care and net social benefit using the uniquely human traits of creativity, altruism, and moral deliberation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.