ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Barrier check study: why predictive machine learning struggles to reach the operating room.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Machine learning for operative time prediction in robotic ventral hernia repair patients: Perspective on predictive model development and validation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMachine learning (ML) has the potential to enhance surgical decision-making through real-time risk prediction and personalised care yet clinical implementation remains limited. This study aimed to identify and categorise the key barriers to implementing ML tools in surgical practice.
methodsA nationwide qualitative survey was conducted among stakeholders involved in ML development or clinical implementation in healthcare. Participants provided open-ended responses describing perceived barriers, their impact and potential solutions. Responses were analysed using inductive thematic content analysis.
results95 participants from 53 organisations submitted 178 individual barrier entries. The most frequently reported barriers included limited clinician trust and artificial intelligence literacy, challenges integrating ML into surgical workflows, regulatory misalignment, insufficient data availability and quality, and unclear economic value. Barriers were highly interconnected, with challenges in one domain often reinforcing others. Proposed solutions emphasised interdisciplinary collaboration, early end-user involvement, improved transparency and training, privacy-preserving data-sharing approaches such as federated learning, and better alignment between regulatory, institutional and clinical structures.
conclusionThe findings indicate that ML implementation in surgery is a socio-technical challenge rather than a purely technical one. Barriers often arise from misalignment between responsibility, decision authority and accountability across technical, clinical and organisational domains, particularly in time-critical surgical settings.
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.