Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38619786›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024

The usefulness of artificial intelligence in breast reconstruction: a systematic review.

Karla C Maita, Francisco R Avila, Ricardo A Torres-Guzman, John P Garcia, Gioacchino D De Sario Velasquez, Sahar Borna, Sally A Brown, Clifton R Haider, Olivia S Ho, Antonio Jorge Forte

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Specialty-Level Overview of Emerging AI Trends.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karla C MaitaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Francisco R AvilaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Ricardo A Torres-GuzmanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
John P GarciaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Gioacchino D De Sario VelasquezDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Sahar BornaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Sally A BrownDepartment of Administration, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Clifton R HaiderDepartment of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Olivia S HoDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Antonio Jorge ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. ajvforte@yahoo.com.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2004-7538
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USJacksonville College · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) offers an approach to predictive modeling. The model learns to determine specific patterns of undesirable outcomes in a dataset. Therefore, a decision-making algorithm can be built based on these patterns to prevent negative results. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the usefulness of AI in breast reconstruction.

methodsA systematic review was conducted in August 2022 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar online databases were queried to capture all publications studying the use of artificial intelligence in breast reconstruction.

resultsA total of 23 studies were full text-screened after removing duplicates, and twelve articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The Machine Learning algorithms applied for neuropathic pain, lymphedema diagnosis, microvascular abdominal flap failure, donor site complications associated to muscle sparing Transverse Rectus Abdominis flap, surgical complications, financial toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after breast surgery demonstrated that AI is a helpful tool to accurately predict patient results. In addition, one study used Computer Vision technology to assist in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Artery detection for flap design, considerably reducing the preoperative time compared to manual identification.

conclusionsIn breast reconstruction, AI can help the surgeon by optimizing the perioperative patients' counseling to predict negative outcomes, allowing execution of timely interventions and reducing the postoperative burden, which leads to obtaining the most successful results and improving patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMachine LearningPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical FlapsArtificial neural networkBreast surgeryDeep artificial neural networkMachine learningPredictive model

Identifiers

PMID38619786
OpenAlexW4394816300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.