Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40908141›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of surgery2025

Ethical Pitfalls in AI-Based Predictive Models in Surgery.

Sara Ben Hmido, Houssam Abder Rahim, Boris Keller, Freek Daams, Matthijs Schakel, J Carel Goslings, E J M Nieveen van Dijkum, Stephen Rainey, Geert Kazemier, Marieke Bak and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

11 authors.

Sara Ben HmidoDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9893-8407
Houssam Abder RahimTU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands.
Boris KellerTU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands.
Freek DaamsDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Matthijs SchakelDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Carel GoslingsTrauma Unit, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
E J M Nieveen van DijkumDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stephen RaineyPhilosophy, Department of Values, Technology and Innovation (VTI), Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Geert KazemierDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marieke BakDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Corrette PloemDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

Medtronic Europe
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingSurgical Procedures, OperativeAlgorithmsHumansAIcomplicationsethicsmachine learningpredictionstakeholderssurgery

Identifiers

PMID40908141
PMCPMC12515021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.