ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Clinical Evaluation of an AI-Assisted Decision Support System for General Anesthesia Management Based on Data From 6 Centers: Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAI is rapidly transforming medical practice, with emerging applications in perioperative care and anesthesiology. However, the clinical implementation of AI-assisted decision-making systems in anesthetic management remains challenging and requires comprehensive evaluation.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the performance and clinical applicability of an AI-assisted decision support system (ZW-AA-001) for general anesthesia management by comparing its decisions with those of experienced anesthesiologists across 6 medical centers.
methodsA multicenter retrospective study was conducted using perioperative data from 1008 patients who underwent elective noncardiac surgeries under total intravenous anesthesia. The AI system's recommendations for anesthetic and hemodynamic medication adjustments were compared with anesthesiologists' decisions. Key outcomes included decision concordance rates, temporal performance, and consistency across centers. Advanced statistical methods, including prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted κ (PABAK) and Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC1), were used to evaluate agreement metrics.
resultsThe study included 1008 patients, with a median age of 50 (IQR 37-59) years and female predominance (619/1008, 61.4%). During anesthesia maintenance, the AI system demonstrated moderate overall decision agreement with anesthesiologists (73.3%, 95% CI 72.4%-74.3%). Analysis of center-specific data revealed generally consistent performance across all 6 centers. For propofol management, high concordance was observed in dosage adjustment decisions (91.1%, 95% CI 90.4%-91.8%), though fair agreement was found in adjustment direction (68.6%, 95% CI 67.3%-69.8%). The AI system showed significantly faster decision-making time compared to anesthesiologists for the adjustment of propofol (pseudomedian difference -77.5, 95% CI -79.5 to -75.5 seconds; P<.001). Although esmolol-related decisions showed a numerically higher concordance of 71.4%, this was not statistically significant (PABAK=0.429; P=.21; AC1=0.622; P=.09). Decisions for atropine, ephedrine, and urapidil demonstrated substantially lower agreement (17.4%-29.8%). The AI system recommended hemodynamic interventions more frequently than anesthesiologists across all medications.
conclusionsThe AI-assisted decision support system demonstrated varying levels of concordance with anesthesiologists in managing surgery, with the highest agreement observed in propofol administration. However, the system's lower agreement in hemodynamic medication management highlights the need for further optimization and validation. These findings underscore the potential of AI systems to enhance anesthetic decision-making, improve efficiency, and address workforce challenges in anesthesiology. Future research should focus on expanding the system's capabilities, validating its performance in prospective clinical trials, and ensuring its integration into diverse clinical 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.