Are Operating Rooms Ready for Surgical AI? New Data Reveals Critical Insights

Are Operating Rooms Ready for Surgical AI New Data Reveals Critical Insights

Introduction

Surgical decision making remains a critical determinant of patient outcomes, with lapses in judgment consistently identified by surgeons as the most common cause of major intraoperative errors. These judgment related failures represent the second leading cause of preventable harm among surgical patients, underscoring the urgent need for improved decision support mechanisms within the operating room. As surgical procedures become increasingly complex and data intensive, reliance on human cognition alone may be insufficient to manage the volume and velocity of information required for optimal clinical decisions in real time.

In this context, surgical artificial intelligence technologies have emerged as promising tools to augment clinical judgment rather than replace it. By leveraging advanced machine learning algorithms, surgical AI systems can integrate and analyze large volumes of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data to generate actionable insights during procedures. These capabilities offer the potential to reduce cognitive load, enhance situational awareness, and support surgeons and anesthesiologists in anticipating complications before they become clinically apparent.

Recent evidence highlights the growing predictive accuracy of AI driven models in surgical care. Machine learning algorithms have demonstrated the ability to accurately predict postoperative complications such as acute kidney injury using combinations of preoperative risk factors and intraoperative physiologic data. In parallel, AI systems trained on automated electronic health record data have successfully predicted multiple postoperative complications with high discriminative performance, achieving area under the curve values ranging from 0.82 to 0.94. These models have also shown robust performance in predicting postoperative mortality at various time points, with area under the curve values between 0.77 and 0.83. In comparative analyses, a machine learning ensemble model outperformed established clinical scoring systems, predicting in hospital mortality with greater accuracy than commonly used tools such as the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

Beyond outcome prediction, surgical AI applications are expanding into intraoperative workflow analysis and technical skill assessment. Computer vision and deep learning systems can now identify surgical instruments, recognize anatomical structures, predict upcoming procedural steps, and evaluate surgical performance metrics. These capabilities have implications not only for real time decision support but also for surgical training, quality improvement, and standardization of care. AI driven systems also show potential in monitoring nontechnical factors, including team communication, adherence to safety protocols, and environmental distractions that contribute to error risk in the operating room.

Despite these advancements, the integration of artificial intelligence into routine surgical practice remains complex and uneven. Successful implementation requires meaningful engagement from surgeons, anesthesiologists, nursing staff, and hospital leadership, as well as clear standards for data interoperability, algorithm validation, and clinical accountability. Ethical considerations such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency, and medico legal responsibility must be addressed alongside technical challenges. Continuous monitoring and performance evaluation are essential to ensure that AI systems remain accurate, clinically relevant, and aligned with patient safety goals.

Promising examples illustrate both the potential and the challenges of surgical AI adoption. The Hypotension Prediction Index algorithm, for instance, has demonstrated that intraoperative hypotensive episodes can be significantly reduced through early warning alerts, with reported accuracy between 84.92 percent and 89.07 percent and sensitivity ranging from 82.15 percent to 90.86 percent. While such systems show clear clinical benefit, their effectiveness depends on clinician trust, appropriate alert thresholds, and seamless integration into existing workflows.

In summary, artificial intelligence holds transformative potential to enhance surgical decision making, improve patient outcomes, and redefine surgical education and performance assessment. However, the question is no longer whether surgical AI is capable, but whether operating rooms are adequately prepared to adopt and sustain these technologies. This article examines the readiness of contemporary surgical environments for AI integration and identifies the technical, cultural, ethical, and organizational barriers that must be addressed to realize the full promise of artificial intelligence in surgery.

Current Gaps in Surgical Decision-Making

Operating rooms present uniquely challenging environments where surgeons navigate complex decisions amid countless variables. A closer examination of these environments reveals several critical gaps in surgical decision-making processes that surgical AI may help address.

Cognitive overload and decision fatigue in high-stakes surgery

The operating theater often becomes a chaotic environment where surgeons must maintain composure while managing multiple cognitive demands. As cognitive load increases, patient safety faces mounting risks [1]. Orthopedic residents experience fatigue during 48% of their waking hours and show signs of cognitive impairment 27% of the time [2]. This fatigue level correlates directly with increased error rates.

Moreover, approximately one-third of intraoperative errors can be attributed to excessive physical and decision fatigue [2]. According to Cognitive Load Theory, the intrinsic complexity of surgical tasks combined with suboptimal environmental factors can approach the limits of a surgeon’s mental capacity, leading to performance deterioration when cognitive load exceeds working memory capabilities [2].

Even experienced surgeons face critical challenges. Although seasoned surgeons have converted many routine decisions into automatic processes—as demonstrated through functional near-infrared spectroscopy showing reduced prefrontal cortex activation compared to novices—they too can be overwhelmed by cascading intraoperative decisions under stressful conditions [2].

Limitations of hypothetical-deductive reasoning in urgent care

Emergency care represents an especially complex arena where practitioners must “spin stacks of plates” amid simultaneous demands from various stakeholders [3]. Nevertheless, emergency medicine continues to be taught using conceptual models of general medicine that follow information-gathering approaches seeking optimal decision-making—a methodology poorly suited to emergency settings [3].

The fundamental problem lies in the mismatch between approach and environment. In emergency departments, patients are often critical, time is limited, information is scarce or absent, yet decisions remain urgently needed [3]. Croskerry noted that “in few other workplace settings, and in no other area of medicine, is decision density as high” as in emergency medicine [3].

Consequently, the hypothetico-deductive method proves inadequate in these scenarios. This approach:

• Fails to describe the initial phase of inquiry related to discovery of hypotheses [4]
• Cannot be applied effectively when information gaps exist in one-third of emergency department visits [3]
• Becomes inefficient or error-prone in ICU settings where rapid judgments in high-risk situations are needed [3]

Instead, emergency care has historically relied more on rapid situational assessment and pattern recognition—skills often neglected in medical education but essential for time-sensitive interventions [3].

Impact of time constraints and incomplete data on outcomes

Time constraints fundamentally alter surgical decision-making quality. Studies demonstrate that patients seen by surgeons toward the end of work shifts were 33 percentage points less likely to be scheduled for operations compared to those seen first [5]. In fact, each additional patient appointment in a doctor’s work shift corresponded with a 10.5% decrease in the odds of scheduling an operation [5].

Missing data presents another critical challenge. Incomplete information is ubiquitous in surgical research and practice, with commonly used datasets from the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program and National Inpatient Sample subject to limitations from missing observations [6]. Patient medical histories and lab values like preoperative serum albumin, blood urea nitrogen, hematocrit, and body mass index are particularly susceptible to unavailability [6].

The absence of complete data contributes to an incomplete understanding of factors in associative and predictive relationships [6]. Although the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program uses predictive model-based multiple imputation methods to account for missing data, other existing datasets require end-users to manually handle missing observations—creating additional cognitive burdens for surgeons already operating under pressure [6].

As surgical AI solutions continue developing, addressing these fundamental gaps in decision-making processes remains essential for improving patient outcomes and supporting surgical teams in high-stakes environments.

Shortcomings of Traditional Decision Support Tools

Traditional decision support tools fall short in meeting the demands of today’s complex surgical environments. Given the high stakes of operating rooms, these conventional systems present several limitations that newer surgical AI solutions aim to address.

Manual data entry in NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Risk Calculator requires manual entry of over 20 pre-operative variables, including laboratory values that may not be readily accessible for all pre-operative patients [7]. This manual process creates a substantial barrier to implementation in high-volume settings where surgeons typically have only 15 minutes allocated for entire patient encounters [7]. Furthermore, a 2019 study of manually entered point-of-care lab test results revealed that 73% of lab data pairs contained discrepancies [8], potentially leading to deviations from appropriate patient care.

Low predictive accuracy in emergent procedures

The ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator demonstrates inconsistent performance across various surgical scenarios. In emergency settings, the calculator shows concerning limitations—the observed-to-expected ratios differ substantially between emergency (O:E = 1.031) and elective populations (O:E = 0.79) [9]. For multiple rib fractures, the calculator underestimated serious complications (8.3% predicted vs. 17.2% observed), and likewise for pelvic ring/acetabular fracture (6.1% predicted vs. 19.8% observed) [10]. Overall, studies indicate poor discrimination power for most outcomes in urgent procedures, limiting its utility precisely when risk assessment matters most.

Bias and heuristics in surgeon judgment

Surgical decision-making remains vulnerable to cognitive biases. Approximately 21% of adverse events in a quality improvement study of 5,256 operations were attributed to cognitive biases [11]. These systematic errors in thinking contribute to surgical complications, morbidity, and even mortality [11]. Common biases include confirmation bias, anchoring, risk aversion, and overconfidence [12], with the latter two directly associated with fatal outcomes [11]. Until these cognitive shortcuts are recognized and addressed through debiasing strategies like mindfulness training and deliberate reflection, they will continue to undermine surgical outcomes.

Lack of personalization in static scoring systems

Existing tools offer limited personalization capabilities. Current risk calculators predominantly use data from approximately 10% of U.S. hospitals, performing roughly 30% of surgeries [1], creating an unbalanced representation. Additionally, these systems often fail to account for critical patient-specific factors such as nutritional status, glycemic control, previous radiation therapy, and chemotherapy effects on wound healing [1]. The American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) score, among the most widely used due to its simplicity, shows poor predictive abilities with an AUROC of only 0.632 for postoperative mortality [2].

Essentially, traditional tools face a fundamental problem: they excel at predicting risk in low-risk patients but perform poorly in high-risk scenarios—precisely where accurate prediction holds the greatest value for patient counseling and risk mitigation [7]. This gap creates an opportunity for surgical AI applications that can overcome these limitations through automated data collection and advanced analytical capabilities.

AI-Powered Models for Surgical Risk Prediction

Advances in artificial intelligence have generated new approaches to surgical risk assessment through predictive models that leverage complex algorithms and vast datasets. These innovations offer potential solutions to the challenges that traditional tools face with accuracy and personalization.

Machine learning for acute kidney injury and sepsis prediction

Machine learning algorithms now enable early prediction of major surgical complications like acute kidney injury (AKI). A recurrent neural network (RNN) for postoperative AKI prediction following cardiothoracic surgery achieved an area under curve of 0.893 (0.862–0.924) [13]. Remarkably, this RNN outperformed experienced clinicians with an AUC of 0.901 versus 0.745 (p<0.001) and demonstrated superior calibration [13]. The Real-time Evaluation and Anticipation with Causal Distillation (REACT) model further refined this approach, distilling 1328 input variables down to just six essential causal factors for cardiac surgery-associated AKI prediction, including serum creatinine, urea nitrogen, uric acid, lactate dehydrogenase, and creatine kinase enzyme [14]. Similarly, machine learning techniques have advanced sepsis detection, with models demonstrating AUC values ranging from 0.69 to 0.83 for early identification [14].

Deep learning for high-dimensional EHR data

Electronic health records present unique challenges for analysis, including temporal dynamics, high dimensionality, and multimodality. Deep learning techniques now address these limitations through specialized architectures. Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs) capture temporal features from dynamic time-series data [15], whereas Transformer models leverage self-attention mechanisms to identify relationships within sequential medical data [15]. Currently, approaches like BEHRT and HiTANet exemplify this trend, representing a paradigm shift from traditional recurrent neural networks in handling the intricate nature of sequential health data [15].

Reinforcement learning for intraoperative decision-making

Reinforcement learning (RL) offers unique capabilities for real-time surgical guidance. RL agents trained in simulated surgical environments learn optimal instrument trajectories and decision-making strategies [16]. For instance, a Deep Q-Networks based RL model used 16 variables to recommend optimum doses of intravenous fluids and vasopressors during surgery, potentially reducing postoperative AKI [5]. The model replicated 69% of physicians’ decisions for vasopressor dosing yet proposed different dosages in 31% of treatments, resulting in higher estimated policy value [5].

Super Learner ensembles for trauma mortality prediction

The SuperLearner ensemble approach combines multiple algorithms ranging from simple logistic regression to complex neural networks, optimizing prediction through embedded cross-validation [17]. In trauma care, SuperLearner achieved near-perfect discrimination for death prediction across post-injury timeframes using large sets of potential predictors [17]. This methodology establishes a performance ceiling against which simplified algorithms can be measured. Additionally, ensemble voting techniques for trauma mortality prediction have shown excellent discrimination with AUROC of 0.9506 and AUPRC of 0.8715 [18].

Real-World Integration of Surgical AI Solutions

Surgical AI solutions are rapidly moving beyond theoretical models into practical applications, bridging the gap between advanced algorithms and clinical workflows.

Automated EHR data streaming into AI models

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) serve as foundational data sources, consolidating patient information across multiple interactions with healthcare providers [19]. Rather than manual data entry, intelligent platforms now extract and transform EHR data in real-time, enabling AI systems to process clinical information automatically. Natural Language Processing algorithms address the challenge of unstructured data by converting clinical notes into navigable formats [19]. These tools integrate disparate clinical details from multiple domains, enhancing accessibility and providing a comprehensive view of patient status before and during surgical procedures.

Mobile device outputs for real-time risk alerts

The translation of complex AI insights into actionable information at the point of care represents a crucial advancement. Applications like POTTER (Predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk) deliver AI-based calculations to surgeons’ mobile devices with high speed and fidelity [20]. In contrast to manual calculators, automated EHR-integrated platforms push results directly to clinicians’ phones, allowing timely intervention [3]. These mobile solutions enable surgical teams to receive alerts about potential complications before they manifest, facilitating earlier corrective action [4].

Human intuition and AI: complementary decision-making

The integration of AI with human clinical judgment creates a symbiotic relationship that enhances surgical outcomes. As Dr. Gabriel Brat noted, “If you take the surgeon’s intuition about what’s happened to the patient and roll that in with the algorithms that have already been built to predict postoperative complications, you get better performance” [21]. Upon receiving AI alerts, the clinical team applies contextual understanding, incorporating the patient’s medical history and cultural considerations that algorithms might miss [4]. This partnership reduces overlooked warning signs yet maintains the essential human element in surgical care.

Case study: MySurgeryRisk platform performance

The MySurgeryRisk platform exemplifies successful surgical AI implementation. This system processes real-time clinical data through analytic pipelines that deliver results to surgeons’ mobile devices [3]. In a study involving 74,417 inpatient surgical procedures, random forest models using 135 features demonstrated excellent discrimination, with AUROC values ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 for predicting eight major complications and mortality [3]. The platform displays patient information, risk assessments, top three risk factors for each complication, and patterns of complications compared to colleagues [3]. Notably, this approach matched surgeons’ predictive accuracy yet provided consistent, bias-free results [22].

Barriers to OR Readiness for Surgical AI

Despite advancements in surgical AI technologies, several critical barriers hamper widespread operating room implementation. These obstacles must be addressed before surgical AI solutions can fulfill their potential in improving patient outcomes.

Data standardization using FHIR protocols

Interoperability remains a fundamental challenge for surgical AI adoption. Even with standardized formats like Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), their prevalence and usability for AI remain limited [23]. FHIR represents an international industry standard that integrates diverse datasets into well-defined exchangeable segments of information called resources [23]. Yet since FHIR format has a multilayered nested structure, use case-specific data preprocessing becomes necessary [23]. The transformation of clinical data requires semantic mapping between source databases and FHIR concepts, followed by validation steps to ensure syntactic compliance [23]. Without proper standardization, federated learning frameworks cannot effectively merge model parameters across different hospital systems [23].

Interpretability of deep models in clinical settings

The inherent complexity of AI models undermines users’ ability to understand, debug, and ultimately trust them in clinical practice [24]. As a result, novel methods are being explored to improve models’ “interpretability” and draw clearer associations between outputs and features in input datasets [24]. Interpretability enables clinicians to monitor models for conformance to clinical standards and identify systemic weaknesses or biases [24]. For example, researchers used heat maps to discover a melanoma detection model’s errant reliance on surgical skin marker artifacts rather than lesion features [24]. Nevertheless, interpretability remains challenging—recent literature highlights ongoing research gaps in terms of model generalizability and real-time interpretability [25].

Ethical concerns: bias, accountability, and transparency

Ethical implementation of surgical AI requires addressing bias, accountability, and transparency issues. Approximately 21% of adverse events in surgical procedures stem from cognitive biases [24]. Furthermore, AI models trained on historical datasets risk perpetuating existing healthcare disparities if certain racial, socioeconomic, or gender groups are underrepresented [26]. The concept of “health data poverty” highlights how certain populations remain underrepresented in medical research [26]. Accountability presents additional challenges—establishing clear responsibility between AI systems, surgeons, technology developers, and hospitals becomes crucial when AI-assisted decisions lead to adverse outcomes [26].

Regulatory frameworks: FDA Software as Medical Device

The FDA reviews medical devices through premarket pathways including clearance (510(k)), De Novo classification, or premarket approval [6]. Nevertheless, traditional paradigms of medical device regulation were not designed for adaptive AI/ML technologies [6]. In response, the FDA has developed several guidance documents, including “Marketing Submission Recommendations for a Predetermined Change Control Plan for AI/ML-Enabled Device Software Functions” [6]. These efforts demonstrate the agency’s commitment to ensuring product safety while supporting innovation in this rapidly growing field [6]. Currently, the FDA’s public database lists over 1,250 AI-enabled medical devices authorized for marketing in the United States [27].

Conclusion   

Surgical AI stands at a pivotal junction between technological advancement and practical implementation. The evidence presented throughout this article demonstrates both the necessity and potential of AI-driven solutions for operating rooms. Judgment errors remain the second most common cause of preventable harm to surgical patients, thus creating a compelling case for decision support tools that enhance rather than replace clinical expertise.

Advanced machine learning algorithms now outperform traditional scoring systems in predicting postoperative complications. These systems address limitations of conventional tools by automating data collection, improving accuracy in high-risk scenarios, and personalizing risk assessments beyond the capabilities of static calculators. Deep learning architectures additionally overcome the challenges of high-dimensional electronic health record data, while reinforcement learning shows potential for real-time intraoperative guidance.

Nevertheless, several obstacles hinder widespread adoption of surgical AI. Data standardization presents a fundamental challenge, despite efforts to implement protocols like Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources. The “black box” nature of complex algorithms raises questions about interpretability – a critical factor when clinical decisions affect patient lives. Ethical concerns regarding bias, accountability, and transparency further complicate integration efforts, alongside evolving regulatory frameworks that must balance innovation with patient safety.

The most successful implementations, therefore, recognize AI as complementary to human judgment rather than its replacement. Platforms like MySurgeryRisk exemplify this approach, delivering risk assessments to surgeons’ mobile devices while preserving the essential human element in patient care. This partnership between algorithms and clinical expertise offers perhaps the most promising path forward.

Accordingly, operating rooms appear poised for surgical AI adoption, albeit with important prerequisites. The technology must become more transparent, ethically sound, and seamlessly integrated into existing workflows. Healthcare institutions must invest in appropriate infrastructure and training. Most importantly, the surgical community must maintain a critical yet open mindset toward these evolving tools.

Though challenges remain, the potential benefits – reduced complications, improved outcomes, and enhanced decision-making – justify continued research and cautious implementation. As these technologies mature, they will likely become invaluable allies in the operating room, ultimately serving the shared goal of safer surgical care and better patient outcomes.

Key Takeaways

Operating rooms show promise for AI integration, but critical barriers must be addressed before widespread adoption can ensure safer surgical outcomes.

• AI outperforms traditional tools: Machine learning models achieve 82-94% accuracy in predicting surgical complications, significantly better than manual risk calculators that struggle with emergency procedures.
• Human-AI partnership is essential: Successful implementations like MySurgeryRisk combine algorithmic precision with surgeon intuition, delivering real-time risk alerts to mobile devices while preserving clinical judgment.
• Data standardization remains a major hurdle: Despite FHIR protocols, interoperability challenges and the “black box” nature of AI models limit interpretability and trust in clinical settings.
• Ethical and regulatory frameworks need development: Bias in AI training data, accountability questions, and evolving FDA guidelines for AI medical devices must be resolved before widespread adoption.
• Cognitive overload drives the need for AI: With judgment errors causing the second-most preventable surgical harm and surgeons experiencing decision fatigue in 48% of cases, AI decision support addresses critical gaps in high-stakes environments.

The evidence suggests that while surgical AI technology is ready, operating room infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and clinical workflows require significant advancement to fully realize AI’s potential in improving patient safety and surgical outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions:   

FAQs

Q1. How accurate are AI models in predicting surgical complications? AI-powered models have demonstrated impressive accuracy in predicting surgical complications. Machine learning algorithms can predict postoperative complications with accuracy ranging from 82% to 94%, which is significantly better than traditional risk calculators.

Q2. Can AI completely replace surgeons in the operating room? No, AI is not expected to completely replace surgeons. Instead, AI and robotics are being developed to assist surgeons, improve the accuracy of procedures, and enhance decision-making in the operating room. The most effective approach combines AI capabilities with human clinical judgment.

Q3. What are the main challenges in implementing AI in operating rooms? The primary challenges include data standardization, ensuring the interpretability of AI models, addressing ethical concerns such as bias and accountability, and navigating evolving regulatory frameworks. Additionally, integrating AI seamlessly into existing clinical workflows and infrastructure presents significant hurdles.

Q4. How does AI help address cognitive overload in surgical settings? AI-powered decision support tools can help mitigate cognitive overload and decision fatigue experienced by surgeons. These tools can process vast amounts of patient data, provide real-time insights, and alert surgeons to potential complications, thereby supporting more informed decision-making in high-stakes environments.

Q5. What is an example of a successful AI implementation in surgical care? The MySurgeryRisk platform is a notable example of successful surgical AI implementation. It processes real-time clinical data and delivers risk assessments directly to surgeons’ mobile devices. The platform has demonstrated excellent discrimination in predicting major complications and mortality across a large number of surgical procedures.

References:  

[Internal Medicine -Home]

Video Section

Check out our extensive video library (see channel for our latest videos)

Recent Articles

• Micro-Behaviors and Macro-Mindsets: An Analysis of Subtle Human Reactions
• Burnout vs. Breakthrough: Why Some Doctors Find Joy Again After Leaving Clinical Practice
• The Truth About Physician Financial Myths: What Most Doctors Get Wrong
• Revisiting Lyme Disease Management in Primary Care
• The Psychology of Everyday Life: How Small Behaviors Reflect Deep Cognitive and Emotional Processes
• Managing ADHD in Adults: A Growing Primary Care Responsibility
• Raw Honey and Early Morning Awakening: Clinical Considerations
• Hemophilia Prophylaxis in the Era of Non-Factor Therapies
• Hidden Cognitive Decline Symptoms: What Every Internist Must Know Today
• Alternative Therapies for Depression: Breakthrough Neurostimulation Methods Show 80% Success Rate
• Pediatric Sepsis: Can Rapid Genomic Diagnostics Save Lives?
• Psychedelics for Acute Suicidality: Could the ED Become the Frontline?
• Pulse Pressure Variation: The Missing Key to Fluid Responsiveness in ED
• Screen Time, Social Media, and Teen Mental Health: What Can Family Physicians Do?
• Should Family Physicians Routinely Screen for Depression and Anxiety?
• Why Standard Blood Pressure Targets After Surgery May Be Harming Your Patients
• Evidence-Based Insights into Everyday Human Behavior
• Fascinating Psychological Insights- Evidence-Based Observations About How the Human Mind and Behavior
• Glycine’s Role in Sleep Enhancement- Clinical Evidence, Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Applications
• Early Morning Awakening Syndrome- Understanding Cortisol Dysregulation
• Why GLP-1 Non-Responders Need Earlier Anti-Obesity Medication Intervention
• Tachyphylaxis in Antidepressants: The Science Behind Treatment Resistance
• The Opioid Crisis in Family Practice: Safe Prescribing vs. Abandoning Patients
• 70 Psychology Facts That Explain How the Mind and Behavior Interact
• 100 Timeless Lessons for Growth, Success, and Happiness — With Healthcare Applications
• The Hidden Patterns of the Human Mind Evidence-Based Insights
• Asthma vs. COPD in Primary Care: Are We Missing Asthma-COPD Overlap?
• Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Why Uptake Remains Low
• The Hidden Cost of Skipping Frailty Assessment: New Research Reveals
• The Spectrum of AI Influence- Comparative Impact Across Medical Specialties