Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40949399›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025

Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review.

Burak Tasci, Sengul Dogan, Turker Tuncer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Burak TasciVocational School of Technical Sciences, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye. btasci@firat.edu.tr.
Sengul DoganDepartment of Digital Forensics Engineering, College of Technology, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye.
Turker TuncerDepartment of Digital Forensics Engineering, College of Technology, Firat University, Elazig 23119, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is gaining widespread traction in surgical disciplines, particularly in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, where it offers opportunities to enhance decision-making, improve accuracy, and optimize patient outcomes across the entire surgical continuum.

aimTo comprehensively evaluate current AI applications in GI surgery, highlighting its role in preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, postoperative monitoring, endoscopic diagnosis, and surgical education.

methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection through March 31, 2025 using the terms "artificial intelligence" AND "gastrointestinal surgery". Inclusion criteria: Original, English-language, full-text articles indexed under the "Surgery" category reporting quantitative AI performance metrics in GI surgery. Exclusion criteria: Reviews, editorials, letters, conference abstracts, non-English publications, ESCI/SSCI/Index Chemicus-only papers, studies without full text, and articles outside the surgical domain. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were assessed, yielding 45 studies from an initial 955 records for qualitative and quantitative synthesis.

resultsThe included studies demonstrated that AI has superior performance compared to traditional clinical tools in areas such as risk prediction, lesion detection, nerve identification, and complication forecasting. Notably, convolutional neural networks, random forests, support vector machines, and reinforcement learning models were commonly used. AI-enhanced systems improved diagnostic accuracy, procedural safety, documentation quality, and educational feedback. However, there are several limitations, such as lack of external validation, dataset standardization, and explainability.

conclusionAI is transforming GI surgery from preoperative risk assessment to postoperative care and training. While many tools now match or exceed expert-level performance, successful clinical adoption requires transparent, validated models that seamlessly integrate into surgical workflows. With continued multidisciplinary collaboration, AI is positioned to become a trusted companion in surgical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networksGastrointestinal surgeryRandom forestsReinforcement learningRisk predictionSupport vector machines

Identifiers

PMID40949399
PMCPMC12427038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.