ReviewWorld journal of surgery2025
Ethical Pitfalls in AI-Based Predictive Models in Surgery.
Review in World journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk prediction in spine surgery: a scoping review of traditional models, artificial intelligence, and the challenge of clinical translation.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Ethical Pitfalls in AI-Based Predictive Models in Surgery.World journal of surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPredictive models in surgery promise to improve clinical care by anticipating complications, guiding decision-making, and supporting personalized treatment strategies. Although their potential to enhance outcomes and efficiency is substantial, their integration into clinical practice also raises profound ethical challenges. ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: These challenges span the entire lifecycle of predictive models from data collection and development to validation and clinical use. They touch upon patient privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency, and the shifting responsibilities of clinicians. Importantly, the ethical concerns are not isolated to one group but shared across patients, developers, and clinicians within a dynamic stakeholder relationship. ANALYSIS: Key risks include biased or unrepresentative datasets, privacy breaches, opaque decision-making processes, and the danger of deskilling surgeons if reliance on algorithms becomes excessive. To mitigate these risks, strategies, such as out-of-distribution detection, standardized data collection, parallel model development, and continuous auditing, are essential. Beyond technical safeguards, embedding predictive models within a framework of accountability and patient-centered care is necessary to sustain trust and equity.
conclusionThe integration of predictive models into surgery requires more than technical excellence, and it demands ethical vigilance. Preparing future clinicians through education that emphasizes both clinical reasoning and ethical awareness is critical. By aligning predictive model development with human-centered values, healthcare systems can ensure that these innovations enhance surgical practice while safeguarding equity, transparency, and patient trust.
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.