CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHistory of Medical PracticeSurgical Simulation and Training

Attitudes of the Surgical Team Toward Artificial Intelligence in Neurosurgery: International 2-Stage Cross-Sectional Survey

Open access
Layard Horsfall, Hugo, Palmisciano, Paolo, Khan, Danyal Z., Muirhead, William, Koh, Chan Hee, Stoyanov, Danail, Marcus, Hani J.·2021·World Neurosurgery
DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.171PMC PMC7910281
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to disrupt how we diagnose and treat patients. Previous work by our group has demonstrated that the majority of patients and their relatives feel comfortable with the application of AI to augment surgical care. The aim of this study was to similarly evaluate the attitudes of surgeons and the wider surgical team toward the role of AI in neurosurgery. METHODS: In a 2-stage cross sectional survey, an initial open-question qualitative survey was created to determine the perspective of the surgical team on AI in neurosurgery including surgeons, anesthetists, nurses, and operating room practitioners. Thematic analysis was performed to develop a second-stage quantitative survey that was distributed via social media. We assessed the extent to which they agreed and were comfortable with real-world AI implementation using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: In the first-stage survey, 33 participants responded. Six main themes were identified: imaging interpretation and preoperative diagnosis, coordination of the surgical team, operative planning, real-time alert of hazards and complications, autonomous surgery, and postoperative management and follow-up. In the second stage, 100 participants responded. Responders somewhat agreed or strongly agreed about AI being used for imaging interpretation (62%), operative planning (82%), coordination of the surgical team (70%), real-time alert of hazards and complications (85%), and autonomous surgery (66%). The role of AI within postoperative management and follow-up was less agreeable (49%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights that the majority of surgeons and the wider surgical team both agree and are comfortable with the application of AI within neurosurgery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.171

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI facilitates better teamwork and coordination among healthcare professionals but requires fostering collaboration across different professional teams, such as AI specialists, physicians, and IT professionals.

    “In terms of relationships with coworkers, AI facilitates better teamwork and coordination among healthcare professionals [30, 35, 57] but require also to foster collaboration across different professionals teams, such as AI specialists, physicians, and IT professionals [36].”

    From Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels (2025) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Results (Quantitative Survey; page not provided) report that 70% of respondents agreed with using AI to assist coordination of the surgical team. This supports perceived potential for better coordination, but the survey does not establish that AI actually improves teamwork. The separate claim about collaboration among AI specialists, physicians, and IT professionals is attached to citation [36], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [2]Obermeyer Z. Emanuel E.J. Predicting the future—big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine N Engl J Med 375 2016 1216 1219 27682033 PMC5070532
  2. [4]Titano J.J. Badgeley M. Schefflein J. Automated deep-neural-network surveillance of cranial images for acute neurologic events Nat Med 24 2018 1337 1341 30104767
  3. [6]Volkov M. Hashimoto D.A. Rosman G. Meireles O.R. Rus D. Machine learning and coresets for automated real-time video segmentation of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery Paper presented at: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) May 8-12, 2017, Seattle ICRA 754 759
  4. [7]Stauder R. Ostler D. Vogel T. Surgical data processing for smart intraoperative assistance systems Innov Surg Sci 2 2017 145 152 31579746 PMC6754013
  5. [8]Choi K. Choi S. Jeong B. Prediction of IDH genotype in gliomas with dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging using an explainable recurrent neural network Neuro-oncology 21 2019 1197 1209 31127834 PMC7594560
  6. [9]Burns J. Yao J. Summers R. Vertebral body compression fractures and bone density: automated detection and classification on CT images Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162100 PMC5584647 28301777 · DOI
  7. [10]Ueda D. Yamamoto A. Nishimori M. Deep learning for MR angiography: automated detection of cerebral aneurysms Radiology 284 2017 788 797 30351253
  8. [11]Chang K. Beers A. Bai H. Automatic assessment of glioma burden: a deep learning algorithm for fully automated volumetric and bidimensional measurement Neuro-oncology 21 2019 1412 1422 31190077 PMC6827825
  9. [13]Durand W, DePasse J, Daniels A. Predictive modeling for blood transfusion after adult spinal deformity surgery: a tree-based machine learning approach. Spine. 29215501
  10. [14]Nielsen A. Hansen M.B. Tietze A. Mouridsen K. Prediction of tissue outcome and assessment of treatment effect in acute ischemic stroke using deep learning Stroke 49 2018 1394 1401 29720437
  11. [15]Chang K. Zhang B. Guo X. Multimodal imaging patterns predict survival in recurrent glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab Neuro-Oncol 18 2016 1680 1687 27257279 PMC6693191
  12. [16]Kim J.S. Merrill R.K. Arvind V. Examining the ability of artificial neural networks machine learning models to accurately predict complications following posterior lumbar spine fusion Spine 43 2018 853 860 29016439 PMC6252089
  13. [17]Scheer J.K. Smith J.S. Schwab F. Development of a preoperative predictive model for major complications following adult spinal deformity surgery J Neurosurg Spine 26 2017 736 743 28338449
  14. [18]Rughani A.I. Dumont T.M. Lu Z. Use of an artificial neural network to predict head injury outcome: clinical article J Neurosurg 113 2010 585 590 20020844
  15. [19]Dumont T.M. Rughani A.I. Tranmer B.I. Prediction of symptomatic cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage with an artificial neural network: feasibility and comparison with logistic regression models World Neurosurg 75 2011 57 63 21492664
  16. [20]McCulloch P. Altman D.G. Campbell W.B. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations Lancet 374 2009 1105 1112 19782876
  17. [21]Palmisciano P. Jamjoom A.A.B. Taylor D. Stoyanov D. Marcus H.J. Attitudes of patients and their relatives toward artificial intelligence in neurosurgery [e-pub ahead of print] World Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.029 32179185 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [22]Health Research Authority (HRA)/INVOLVE Patient and public involvement in research and research ethics committee review Available at: http://invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HRA-INVOLVE-updated-statement-2016.pdf
  19. [23]Kelley K. Clark B. Brown V. Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research Int J Qual Health Care 15 2003 261 266 12803354
  20. [25]Sutton J. Austin Z. Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management Can J Hosp Pharm 68 2015 226 231 26157184 PMC4485510
  21. [26]Schepman A. Rodway P. Initial validation of the general attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale Comput Hum Behav Rep 1 2020 100014 PMC7231759 34235291
  22. [29]Courtland R. Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair Nature 558 2018 357 360 29925973
  23. [30]Gibney E. The battle for ethical AI at the world’s biggest machine-learning conference Nature 577 2020 609 31992885
  24. [31]Staartjes V.E. Stumpo V. Kernbach J.M. Machine learning in neurosurgery: a global survey [e-pub ahead of print] Acta Neurochir (Wien). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04532-1 PMC7593280 32812067 · DOI
  25. [32]Sit C. Srinivasan R. Amlani A. Attitudes and perceptions of UK medical students towards artificial intelligence and radiology: a multicentre survey Insights Imaging 11 2020 14 32025951 PMC7002761
  26. [34]Oh S. Kim J.H. Choi S.-W. Lee H.J. Hong J. Kwon S.H. Physician confidence in artificial intelligence: an online mobile survey J Med Internet Res 21 2019 e12422 30907742 PMC6452288
  27. [35]Polesie S. Gillstedt M. Kittler H. Attitudes towards artificial intelligence within dermatology: an international online survey Br J Dermatol 183 2020 159 161 31953854
  28. [36]Fast E. Horvitz E. Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. ArXiv160904904 Cs. Published online December 2, 2016 Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04904 · arXiv
  29. [39]Bossi F. Willemse C. Cavazza J. Marchesi S. Murino V. Wykowska A. The human brain reveals resting state activity patterns that are predictive of biases in attitudes toward robots Sci Robot 5 2020 eabb6652 32999049

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Layard Horsfall, H., Palmisciano, P., Khan, D. Z., Muirhead, W., Koh, C. H., Stoyanov, D., & Marcus, H. J.
Affiliations
Wellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (GB)
ORCID
Venue
World Neurosurgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
146
Pages
e724-e730
ISSN
1878-8750 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.171
PMC
PMC7910281
OpenAlex
W3109712634
Cited by
64
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • World Neurosurgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › History of Medical Practice
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
artificial intelligence, neurosurgery, surgeon attitudes, surgical team, AI implementation, operative planning, preoperative diagnosis, surgical team coordination, autonomous surgery, postoperative care, patient acceptance of AI
MeSH terms
Neurosurgeons, Anesthesiologists, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neurosurgery, Nurses, Operating Room Technicians, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review