SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Artificial intelligence for predicting surgical difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurately predicting operative difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is foundational to personalized surgical planning and patient safety assurance. However, the reliability, generalizability, and true clinical utility of current Artificial Intelligence (AI) models are currently unsubstantiated. This review aimed to evaluate the predictive performance and methodological quality of AI models designed to predict LC surgical difficulty.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2, 2026. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability. The areas under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The overall certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251267805).
resultsA total of 18 studies were included in this review. Sixteen studies were at high risk of bias. The pooled AUC for 27 training models was 0.848 (95% CI, 0.829-0.868). For 32 validation models, the pooled AUC was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.797-0.840). Ensemble models achieved the highest pooled AUCs (0.889 and 0.861) in both training and validation set. Multimodal integration of clinical features, imaging, and intraoperative video also yielded superior performance.
conclusionCurrent research showed significant methodological flaws. AI models based on ensemble architecture and multimodal approaches warrant further exploration. Most studies carry a high risk of bias and rarely undergo external validation, which limits clinical translation. Before clinical implementation, these models still require strict methodological evaluation, prospective multicenter testing, and proper calibration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42595911What 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.