Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can now reliably assess surgeon skills through videos of intraoperative surgical activity. With such systems informing future high-stakes decisions such as whether to credential surgeons and grant them the privilege to operate on patients, it is critical that they treat all surgeons fairly. However, it remains an open question whether surgical AI systems exhibit bias against surgeon sub-cohorts, and, if so, whether such bias can be mitigated. Here, we examine and mitigate the bias exhibited by a family of surgical AI systems—SAIS—deployed on videos of robotic surgeries from three geographically-diverse hospitals (USA and EU). We show that SAIS exhibits an underskilling bias, erroneously downgrading surgical performance, and an overskilling bias, erroneously upgrading surgical performance, at different rates across surgeon sub-cohorts. To mitigate such bias, we leverage a strategy —TWIX—which teaches an AI system to provide a visual explanation for its skill assessment that otherwise would have been provided by human experts. We show that whereas baseline strategies inconsistently mitigate algorithmic bias, TWIX can effectively mitigate the underskilling and overskilling bias while simultaneously improving the performance of these AI systems across hospitals. We discovered that these findings carry over to the training environment where we assess medical students’ skills today. Our study is a critical prerequisite to the eventual implementation of AI-augmented global surgeon credentialing programs, ensuring that all surgeons are treated fairly.

Background Surgeons who receive reliable feedback on their performance quickly master the skills necessary for surgery. Such performance-based feedback can be provided by a recently-developed artificial intelligence (AI) system that assesses a surgeon’s skills based on a surgical video while simultaneously highlighting aspects of the video most pertinent to the assessment. However, it remains an open question whether these highlights, or explanations, are equally reliable for all surgeons. Methods Here, we systematically quantify the reliability of AI-based explanations on surgical videos from three hospitals across two continents by comparing them to explanations generated by humans experts. To improve the reliability of AI-based explanations, we propose the strategy of training with explanations –TWIX –which uses human explanations as supervision to explicitly teach an AI system to highlight important video frames. Results We show that while AI-based explanations often align with human explanations, they are not equally reliable for different sub-cohorts of surgeons (e.g., novices vs. experts), a phenomenon we refer to as an explanation bias. We also show that TWIX enhances the reliability of AI-based explanations, mitigates the explanation bias, and improves the performance of AI systems across hospitals. These findings extend to a training environment where medical students can be provided with feedback today. Conclusions Our study informs the impending implementation of AI-augmented surgical training and surgeon credentialing programs, and contributes to the safe and fair democratization of surgery.

How well a surgery is performed impacts a patient’s outcomes; however, objective quantification of performance remains an unsolved challenge. Deconstructing a procedure into discrete instrument-tissue “gestures” is a emerging way to understand surgery. To establish this paradigm in a procedure where performance is the most important factor for patient outcomes, we identify 34,323 individual gestures performed in 80 nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomies from two international medical centers. Gestures are classified into nine distinct dissection gestures (e.g., hot cut) and four supporting gestures (e.g., retraction). Our primary outcome is to identify factors impacting a patient’s 1-year erectile function (EF) recovery after radical prostatectomy. We find that less use of hot cut and more use of peel/push are statistically associated with better chance of 1-year EF recovery. Our results also show interactions between surgeon experience and gesture types—similar gesture selection resulted in different EF recovery rates dependent on surgeon experience. To further validate this framework, two teams independently constructe distinct machine learning models using gesture sequences vs. traditional clinical features to predict 1-year EF. In both models, gesture sequences are able to better predict 1-year EF (Team 1: AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.81; Team 2: AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.66–0.70) than traditional clinical features (Team 1: AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.65–0.73; Team 2: AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.62–0.68). Our results suggest that gestures provide a granular method to objectively indicate surgical performance and outcomes. Application of this methodology to other surgeries may lead to discoveries on methods to improve surgery.

No abstract

No abstract