Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Artificial Intelligence in U.S. Surgical Training: A Scoping Review Mapping Current Applications and Identifying Gaps for Future Research Applications
0
Zitationen
7
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly applied in general surgery education, yet their full impact on training across different learner levels remains unclear. The objectives of this study are to map the current use of AI/ML in general surgery education, with a focus on skill acquisition, risk stratification, and competency evaluation. The eligibility criteria included studies involving AI/ML interventions in general surgery training for medical students, residents, or practicing surgeons. Articles focused solely on clinical outcomes or non-surgical fields were excluded. A systematic search of databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and IEEE Xplore, was conducted. Data were extracted on study design, training level, type of AI/ML tool, educational focus, and key outcomes. A total of 18 studies were selected, which focused on simulation-based training, skill assessment, and decision support. Common barriers included a lack of standardization and limited integration into curricula. AI/ML shows promise in enhancing surgical education, but further research is needed to validate tools, measure impact, and address integration challenges.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines
2020 · 5.576 Zit.
Virtual Reality Training Improves Operating Room Performance
2002 · 2.804 Zit.
An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data
2008 · 2.510 Zit.
Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents
1997 · 2.260 Zit.
Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence
2011 · 1.736 Zit.