Acceptance and understanding of artificial intelligence in medical research among orthopaedic surgeons

Abstract

AimsThe principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons.MethodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.ResultsThe four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training.ConclusionResearch involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703.

Predicting Functional Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review

“…Evidence-based medicine enables surgeons to trust that research findings will translate into benefits for their patients. However, a lack of understanding can alter this relationship [33]. Farrow et al [5] proposed that when engaging with AI research, surgeons essentially assume the role of laypersons, likely due to the specialised nature of AI research methodology.…”

Enabling Personalized Medicine in Orthopaedic Surgery Through Artificial Intelligence

“…» AI infrastructure development requires institutional financial commitment and a team of clinicians and data scientists with expertise in AI that can complement skill sets and knowledge. Once a team is established and a goal is determined, teams (1) obtain, curate, and label data; (2) establish a reference standard; (3) develop an AI model; (4) evaluate the performance of the AI model; (5) externally validate the model, and (6) reinforce, improve, and evaluate the model's performance until clinical implementation is possible.…”

“…What Is AI? AI is a term that is frequently used and often poorly understood 5 . Figure 1 provides a list of terms commonly used throughout this article and their definitions 4,[6][7][8][9][10][11] .…”

“…Owing to its rapid evolution and introduction to orthopaedic surgery, there still exists confusion surrounding the subject. For example, one study surveying orthopaedic surgeons of varying experience levels found that 9 of 11 surgeons gave insufficient or inaccurate definitions of AI, leading to the conclusion that there is much uncertainty surrounding the topic 5 . In addition, there are many limitations to the use of AI, and readers of AI literature should be weary of the quality of data each study uses 32 .…”