ReviewFuture science OA2025
Artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in clinical medicine: progress, challenges, and future directions.
Review in Future science OA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Orthopedic Practice: Modeling Attitudes and Intentions to Use AI.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Incentivizing artificial intelligence in surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Hospitalization expenses for radical prostatectomy in a tertiary hospital in China: a quantile regression and CHAID decision tree analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Review
- Global research hotspots and emerging trends in orthopedic robotic surgery: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Technology readiness of patients and its association with intention to use nursing robots: latent profile analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- The AI doctor will see you soon: from assistants to autonomous practitioners.Medical review (2021) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence for surgical data management and decision support: lessons from wound care.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: navigating the new frontier of precision uro-oncology.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological innovations in medicine are increasingly expected to replicate the diagnostic, decision-making, and procedural skills of experienced physicians. This review explores the evolution, current status, and limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery in clinical practice. Radiology and pathology have led the way in digital transformation, enabling AI applications through standardized datasets and electronic health records. However, limitations such as algorithmic opacity, legal-ethical uncertainties, and fragmented digital infrastructures continue to hinder broader implementation. In robotic surgery, soft tissue procedures have not yet demonstrated significant advantages over conventional laparoscopy in terms of cost or operative efficiency. Orthopedic applications, particularly in arthroplasty, are promising but still lack long-term validation. Importantly, for any technology to create true value in healthcare, its benefits must clearly outweigh its costs. As healthcare systems face mounting pressure from aging populations and rising procedural demand, particularly for cholecystectomy, prostatectomy, and arthroplasty, the development of efficient and scalable technologies becomes inevitable. While neither AI nor robotic surgery has yet fulfilled its transformative promise, historical trends suggest that innovation will persist toward overcoming these barriers.
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.