ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Surgery and Surgical Training: Opportunities, Risks, and Safeguards for Preserving Expertise.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is entering cardiac surgery through predictive modelling, multimodal imaging, perioperative monitoring, workflow automation, and emerging computer-vision applications. The most mature evidence concerns risk prediction before and after surgery. Even in this domain, however, systematic reviews show that improvements over conventional statistical models are often modest and that routine clinical implementation remains limited. In surgical education, simulation, automated video analysis, and objective performance metrics may expand opportunities for deliberate practice and provide feedback that is less dependent on individual observers. Most of this evidence comes from general, laparoscopic, urological, and robotic surgery rather than cardiac-specific training, and its transferability should not be assumed. The same technologies also create risks. Automation bias, cognitive off-loading, reduced exposure to failure management, and displacement of mentor-trainee interaction may weaken the independent judgement on which safe cardiac surgery depends. Opaque models, dataset shift, inequitable performance, and uncertain accountability add further clinical and ethical concerns. This narrative review examines the current and emerging roles of AI across the cardiac surgical pathway and in cardiothoracic training, while distinguishing demonstrated applications from plausible but unproven uses. We propose a human-in-command framework based on external validation, local performance testing, transparent intended use, preserved manual and crisis-management competencies, simulation of technology failure, faculty oversight, competency-based credentialing, and continuous audit. AI should be judged not by technical novelty alone but by whether it improves care while preserving the ability of surgeons and teams to operate safely when the technology is unavailable or wrong.
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.