ReviewCureus2025
Automated and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Derived Performance Assessment in Surgical Simulation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-driven simulation in dental education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of learning outcomes.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted and automated performance assessment is increasingly being incorporated into surgical education, yet the degree, efficacy, and trustworthiness of this performance assessment are unknown. A systematic review of the literature published between 2010 and 2025 on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and IEEE Xplore (including conference proceedings and gray literature) was completed to identify experimental and observational studies that reported the use of algorithms or automated methods of assessment in technical skill assessment in both simulator-based training and real clinical practice. Information was extracted on study characteristics, algorithm type, task complexity, performance measures, evidence of validity and reliability, and the quality of studies, assessed using relevant tools, with results reported descriptively and trends reviewed by study type, year, country, and task domain. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, with most using supervised learning algorithms to evaluate technical skills; performance measures ranged widely, and studies were inconsistent in documenting the validity and reliability of the assessments. Few studies presented a real-time adaptive feedback system. The literature reflects a shift toward simulation-based assessment and the increasing use of multimodal data sources. Still, methodological heterogeneity, poor transparency, and a lack of validity and reliability prevent generalisability across tasks and contexts. AI-based assessment has potential in surgical education, with real-time adaptive assessment particularly interesting; however, standardised, validated methods are required to ensure reproducible measures of performance and ethical implementation in surgical simulation training.
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.