Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41701931›Full record

ReviewJMIR AI2026

Application of AI Models for Preventing Surgical Complications: Scoping Review of Clinical Readiness and Barriers to Implementation.

Kjersti Mevik, Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay, Eva Lindell Jonsson, Miguel Tejedor, Claire Temple-Oberle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Kjersti MevikDepartment of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, 8092, Norway, 47 97123977.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0692-7240
Ashenafi Zebene WoldaregayThe Norwegian Centre for Clinical Artificial Intelligence, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9464-3407
Eva Lindell JonssonDepartments of Surgery and Oncology, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4267-9363
Miguel TejedorTechnology and AI, Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7696-1272
Claire Temple-OberleDepartments of Surgery and Oncology, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1199-6590

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The impact of surgical complications is substantial and multifaceted, affecting patients and their families, surgeons, and health care systems. Despite the remarkable progress in artificial intelligence (AI), there remains a notable gap in the prospective implementation of AI models in surgery that use real-time data to support decision-making and enable proactive intervention to reduce the risk of surgical complications. Objective: This scoping review aims to assess and analyze the adoption and use of AI models for preventing surgical complications. Furthermore, this review aims to identify barriers and facilitators for implementation at the bedside. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a literature search using IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, ABI, Embase, Epistemonikos, CINAHL, and Cochrane registries. The inclusion criteria included empirical, peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2013 and January 2025, involving AI models for preventing surgical complications (surgical site infections, and heart and lung complications or stroke) in real-world settings. Exclusions included retrospective algorithm-only validations, nonempirical research (eg, editorials or protocols), and non-English studies. Study characteristics and AI model development details were extracted, along with performance statistics (eg, sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). We then used thematic analysis to synthesize findings related to AI models, prediction outputs, and validation methods. Studies were grouped into three main themes: (1) duration of hypotension, (2) risk for complications, and (3) decision support tool. Results: Of the 275 identified records, 19 were included. The included models frequently demonstrated strong technical accuracy with high sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, particularly among studies evaluating decision support tools. However, only a few models were adopted routinely in clinical practice. Two studies evaluated the clinicians' perceptions regarding the use of AI models, reporting predominantly positive assessments of their usefulness. Conclusions: Overall, AI models hold potential to predict and prevent surgical complications as the validation studies demonstrated high accuracy. However, implementation in routine practice remains limited by usability barriers, workflow misalignment, trust concerns, and financial and ethical constraints. The evidence included in this scoping review was limited by the heterogeneity in study design and the predominance of small-scale feasibility studies, particularly for hypotension prediction. Future research should prioritize prospectively validated models that use other physiologic features and address clinicians' concerns regarding generalizability and adoption.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligenceclinical decision supportmachine learningperioperative carepredictive modelingrisk predictionsurgery outcomessurgical complicationssurgical complications prediction models

Identifiers

PMID41701931
PMCPMC12912657

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.