ReviewPatient safety in surgery2025
Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches for patient safety in complex surgery: a review.
Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Perioperative Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Pooled it
- Repurposing a commercial artificial intelligence vision platform for automated surgical instrument identification: a proof-of-concept study.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- Algorithmic bias in surgical risk prediction models and its impact on patient safety: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Review
- Machine learning prediction model for surgical site infections after major abdominal surgery.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making across the perioperative continuum: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly being used in surgical care; however, their real-world impact on patient safety is not well established. This narrative review searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published from January 1, 2015, to April 30, 2025, that evaluated AI and ML applications in complex surgery and reported quantitative patient safety outcomes. Eligible included studies were published between 2016 and 2025. In total, 21 studies were synthesized across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of the study. Preoperatively, ML models consistently outperformed traditional risk scores in identifying high-risk patients and anticipating technical difficulties. Intraoperatively, AI-enabled decision support reduced hypotension exposure in a randomized trial, and computer vision systems supported the safety-critical step verification and instrument tracking. Postoperatively, multimodal approaches combining electronic records, imaging, and smartphone wound photographs predicted complications, such as surgical site infection, and facilitated discharge planning. Emerging evidence from ambulatory surgery, imaging-guided triage, and specialty domains, alongside qualitative studies on workforce readiness, highlights implementation opportunities and human factor requirements. Most evidence is retrospective, single-center, or prototype stage with limited external validation and uncertain generalizability across settings, including low- and middle-income countries. Priorities include multicenter prospective trials, standardized outcomes and reporting, continuous bias and model drift monitoring, robust data infrastructure, and equity-focused implementation to translate algorithmic performance into fewer complications, deaths, and costs.
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.