ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Validation of artificial intelligence algorithms for the surgical practice].
Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in surgery; however, the validation of such systems is often methodologically insufficient.
objectiveWhich validation issues arise in surgical AI and what requirements can be derived for clinically meaningful validation strategies?
methodsMetric-related pitfalls reported in the literature were analyzed, combined with insights from the interdisciplinary consensus process "metrics reloaded" and its ongoing extension to surgical applications.
resultsRecurring weaknesses are observed at the levels of data, metrics and reporting. The lack of consideration of temporal structures and aggregation in video data is particularly critical. DISCUSSION: A structured, clinically grounded validation is essential for the safe use of surgical AI. The metrics reloaded procedure is currently being adapted to address surgery-specific requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40643685What 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.