ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making across the perioperative continuum: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in supporting clinical decision-making across the perioperative continuum remains incompletely defined. Although the presence of many AI models that perform well in terms of their predictive performance has been established, their role in the actual surgical decision-making process in the real-world in terms of specialties and perioperative phases has not been fully mapped. Objective: To map the existing literature on the application of AI in surgical decision-making across the perioperative continuum, describe its use in preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, and identify key barriers and gaps affecting clinical implementation. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for studies evaluating AI applications in surgical decision-making. Eligible studies included primary research and evidence syntheses applying machine learning, deep learning, radiomics, or computer vision to diagnosis, risk stratification, surgical planning, intraoperative guidance, or postoperative outcome prediction. Study characteristics, perioperative phase, clinical application, AI methodology, and reported implementation barriers were extracted and charted using a standardized data form. Results: Fifty- five sources of evidence were included. Sources addressing multiple or cross-phase perioperative applications constituted the largest category, while among phase-specific applications, preoperative applications were the most frequent and primarily focused on diagnosis, risk stratification, and surgical planning. Intraoperative applications were less common and were limited by data availability, workflow integration, and real-time implementation challenges. Postoperative applications mainly addressed complication prediction, survival estimation, and recovery monitoring. Conclusion: AI in surgical decision-making is expanding rapidly, with preoperative applications showing comparatively greater evidence maturity than intraoperative and postoperative applications. However, prospective validation and real-world implementation remain limited across the perioperative continuum.
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.