Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34
DOI: 10.20517/ais.2024.69 Artificial
Intelligence Surgery
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
www.oaepublish.com/ais
Open AccessCommentary
Clinical deployment of machine learning models in
craniofacial surgery: considerations for adoption
and implementation
Mélissa Roy1, Russell R. Reid2, Senthujan Senkaiahliyan3, Andrea S. Doria4,5, John H. Phillips3, Michael
Brudno6,7,8,9, Devin Singh10
1Division of Plastic, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton L8S 4L8, Canada.
2Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
3Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto M5G 1X8, Canada.
4Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto M5T 1W7, Canada.
5Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto M5G 1E8, Canada.
6Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 2E4, Canada.
7Vector Institute, Toronto M5G 1M1, Canada.
8Digital Team and Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto M5G 2C4, Canada.
9Genetics and Genome Biology, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto M5G 0A4, Canada.
10Department of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto M5G 1X8, Canada.
Correspondence to: Dr. Devin Singh, Department of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto
M5G 1X8, Canada. E-mail: devin.singh@sickkids.ca
How to cite this article: Roy M, Reid RR, Senkaiahliyan S, Doria AS, Phillips JH, Brudno M, Singh D. Clinical deployment of
machine learning models in craniofacial surgery: considerations for adoption and implementation. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34.
https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69
Received: 16 Aug 2024 First Decision: 24 Sep 2024 Revised: 11 Nov 2024 Accepted: 14 Nov 2024 Published: 13 Dec 2024
Academic Editors: Ernest S. Chiu, Andrew A. Gumbs Copy Editor: Pei-Yun Wang Production Editor: Pei-Yun Wang
Abstract
The volume and complexity of clinical data are growing rapidly. The potential for artificial intelligence (AI) and
machine learning (ML) to significantly impact plastic and craniofacial surgery is immense. This manuscript reviews
the overall landscape of AI in craniofacial surgery, highlighting the scarcity of prospective and clinically translated
models. It examines the numerous clinical promises and challenges associated with AI, such as the lack of robust
legislation and structured frameworks for its integration into medicine. Clinical translation considerations are
discussed, including the importance of ensuring clinical utility for real-world use. Finally, this commentary brings
forward how clinicians can build trust and sustainability toward model-driven clinical care.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, machine learning, craniofacial surgery, clinical translation
CLINICAL DEPLOYMENT OF MACHINE LEARNING MODELS IN CRANIOFACIAL
Page 428 Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69
SURGERY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The volume and complexity of clinical data are growing rapidly across all fields of medicine. In parallel,
computational power is expanding and becoming more accessible, while human resources continue to
remain relatively stagnant and limited in healthcare[1]. It has been predicted that artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning (ML) will be ubiquitous in future clinical care[1]. Significant areas of interest that
could revolutionize care include processing of electronic health record data, image classification, and
identification of medical errors[2,3]. The promising appeal to incorporate AI into clinical practice must be
contextualized, and the intrinsic limitations to the use of ML algorithms acknowledged. Clinical translation
of ML tools and prospective validation articles are scarce to date and a new set of considerations for
adoption and implementation have been unveiled. This article reviews the current ML landscape in
craniofacial surgery and highlights promises, challenges, and considerations for successful clinical
translation.
Current landscape of ML in craniofacial surgery
The role of ML and AI in craniofacial surgery has previously been thoroughly reviewed[4-9]. In a scoping
review by Mak et al. (2020), the authors identified numerous craniofacial-based studies developing ML
models[4]. ML is particularly relevant to craniofacial surgery as it is a specialty that: (1) relies on imaging for
diagnostic purposes; (2) uses standardized and universal anatomical landmarks (soft tissue and bony); (3)
benefits from three-dimensional planning and surgical navigation; and (4) has variable outcomes and
benefits from risk prediction[9]. Thus far, published craniofacial surgery studies using AI have been
experimental and theoretical in nature, mostly relying on retrospective datasets with very limited sample
sizes and generally single-centered.
Cleft surgery
The potential benefit of integrating AI into cleft care spans numerous facets of clinical care due to the varied
presentations (from cleft lip to velopharyngeal insufficiency and dentoalveolar discrepancies) and evolution
over patients’ growth and development. A scoping review identified previously explored areas for
implementation of AI in cleft care[10]: prediction of risk of developing cleft lip or palate, diagnosis (prenatal
cleft presence), severity of morphological deformities of nose[11], speech evaluation (presence of
hypernasality, assessment of intelligibility)[12], surgical planning (estimation of volumetric defect of alveolar
cleft), prediction of need for orthognathic surgery, and more.
Orthognathic surgery
Orthognathic surgery lands itself well to be augmented by AI, although few studies have been published
thus far. A review of possible applications demonstrated areas of interest for future studies, including[13]:
complex diagnoses (superimposing numerous diagnostic tools for measurement of upper airways and
management of obstructive sleep apnea), common diagnoses (lateral cephalogram review), treatment
planning (taking into account the symbiotic relationship with orthodontic changes), creation of custom
dental appliances, and much more. An early study (2019) within the field of orthognathic surgery proposed
a proof of concept that AI (specifically convolutional neural networks) can be used in order to score facial
attractiveness and apparent age in orthognathic surgery patients[14]. Assistance in diagnosis and surgical
planning has also been proposed using CT scan images and comparing discrepancies in cephalometric
measures between the AI-generated plan and the postoperative images[15].
Craniosynostosis and head shape difference
Head shape differences are ubiquitous, and the rarity of craniosynostosis and the clinical ramifications of
later diagnosis generate huge diagnostic importance, which can be aided by AI. A review from 2023
explored the existing literature on the topic, highlighting that most studies thus far have used two-
Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69 Page 429
dimensional photographs for model building in which image orientation had a large impact on outcome[16].
A team at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, is also developing a model compatible with three-
dimensional photographic analysis for diagnostic purposes and is validating it into a mobile capture for
widespread use and patient empowerment[17].
Craniofacial trauma
The detection of facial trauma on imaging has been an area of interest for the introduction of AI[18]. Overall
performance of models being developed, such as the DeepCT, has been excellent with high reported
sensitivity (89%) and specificity (95%) while using two-dimensional models with CT scan images[19].
Detection of facial fractures using three-dimensional images is also being explored within the biotechnology
literature[20]. Various models have been used, including CNNs and deep learning systems using a one-stage
detection called you only look once (YOLO)[18,21,22].
Facial reanimation
Thus far, AI represents a great promise of revolutionizing outcomes assessment for facial reanimation.
Traditionally, researchers and surgeons have used static images of smile commissure excursion using
various tools to provide an outcome assessment[23]. With the use of ML technology, facial expression
tracking and, therefore, dynamic facial assessment are becoming possible. Video analysis of cross-facial
nerve graft (CFNG) and free gracilis muscle patients took place in a proof of concept study by Boonipat
et al.[24]. This methodology enabled the authors to analyze symmetry, excursion, and overall facial
movements via the review of more than 500 facial landmarks. Another aspect of facial reanimation surgery
that has remained difficult to capture with existing outcome measures includes smile spontaneity.
Dusseldorp et al. compared controls with patients having undergone CFNG, masseter nerve coaptation, and
dual innervation to assess the feasibility of using such a tool to review spontaneity[25]. Although promising
innovative outcomes analyses are being developed, the surgical reconstruction of facial palsy focuses on the
lower face and smile, whereas AI technology considers the face as a whole.
Clinical promises
To many clinicians, AI represents a new technological advancement that can revolutionize their practice,
yet also a poorly understood and intimidating one. Such paradoxical perceptions of AI can be explained by
the power that is inherent to it and the often lack of transparency behind its use on our electronic devices,
social media, and more. Transparency, safety, and methodological rigor are central to evidence-based
medicine and can be enabled with established reporting standards tools. A new initiative, the MINimum
Information for Medical AI Reporting (MINIMAR), proposes such reporting standards[2]. MINIMAR
highlights four fundamental areas of transparency and reporting: (1) study population and setting; (2)
patient demographic characteristics; (3) model architecture; and (4) model evaluation. This concept is
further explored by research done by Sendak et al. with the “Model Facts” label[26]. To maximize the effective
and positive implementation of an AI model, adherence to such standards of reporting is highly
recommended.
Some of the highly anticipated promises of AI are centered around the optimization of patient-centered care
and outcomes. The hope is that detailed and precise ML algorithms can help enhance a clinician’s
diagnostic, management, and prognostic capabilities, as well as monitor and decrease medical errors. AI
may also allow patients to have a sense of improved ownership of their data and empower them with the
ability to interpret their health information[1]. Such optimization of care would have a system-level impact
and could allow for more efficient workflow, better resource allocation, and improved clinical outcomes, to
name a few[1].
Page 430 Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69
Clinical challenges
Some of the most feared consequences of AI are the potential for patient harm and the increased
accountability for clinicians. At baseline, introducing new technology into the medical field requires close
monitoring and auditing. In the case of AI, a flawed algorithm can lead to the dissemination of iatrogenic
harm, medical errors, and malpractice[1]. Incorrect model outputs leading to adverse patient outcomes also
increase the potential liability for physicians. This can deter healthcare professionals from utilizing AI as it is
currently not essential to the delivery of care. Beyond an inaccurate algorithm also exists a black box one, or
one for which the operations and output cannot be explained and is at the center of much controversy[27,28].
In the current climate, careful model validation, prospective auditing, and algorithm enhancements are
therefore necessary, as well as human support and oversight upon deployment of any AI models[1].
Transparency regarding model development and data sources used, algorithms and overall methodological
disclosure according to the MINIMAR reporting guidelines can mitigate some of these challenges[2].
The Gender Shades project further underscores the importance of reporting guidelines to ensure rigorous
bias assessments are completed[29]. The study highlights significant racial and gender bias in commercial
facial recognition technologies. Their research revealed that AI systems from companies like IBM,
Microsoft, and Face++ were less accurate at identifying gender in darker-skinned individuals, particularly
women, with error rates of up to 34.7% for darker-skinned females, compared to less than 1% for lighter-
skinned males. This disparity is linked to the underrepresentation of diverse phenotypes in the datasets used
to train these models, which overwhelmingly consist of lighter-skinned individuals.
These findings are particularly relevant for photo-based AI applications in craniofacial surgery. As these
technologies become integrated into surgical planning and diagnostics, biases could disproportionately
affect individuals with darker skin tones, potentially leading to misdiagnoses or improper treatment
recommendations. It underscores the necessity of using diverse and balanced datasets in the development of
AI models in craniofacial surgery as well as conducting detailed subgroup bias assessments on gender, age,
race, ethnicity, and in some instances, skin tone (for image/photography-based applications). Of note,
transparency to patients on how a model is expected to work specifically for them, based on these subgroup
bias assessments, is important to facilitate genuine informed consent. It is expected that variations in
performance will occur, and with transparency in understanding the limitations of a model, risk can be
mitigated to ensure care delivery remains equitable even when a model may not perform equally across
various populations.
While large data pools are required to create reliable and generalizable ML models, the acquisition of such
information may lead to concerns regarding health data ownership, privacy, and security[30,31]. Possible
malicious uses of AI technology have been reviewed and could include: breaches of data security and
privacy, hacking of algorithms with the intent to harm, manipulation of data, and much more[32].
Governance bodies should seek to define best practices, to mitigate security and safety threats, and to have
action plans in case a malicious event occurs[32]. Guidance navigating expectations and consequences of the
use of ML models in healthcare should be encouraged at all levels (patient, physician, institutions, and
governing bodies). Excessive or absolute dependence on experimental models should be avoided until
robust foundations and infrastructures are in place to mitigate risks associated with AI.
Clinical translation: real-world introduction
Watson et al. conducted semi-structured interviews with American Academic Medical Centers regarding
their use of predictive modeling and ML techniques within clinical care[33]. The team identified specific
barriers to the adoption and implementation of such models that encompassed several themes: culture and
personnel, clinical utility, financing, technology, and data. Overall, multidisciplinary development teams
Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69 Page 431
were found to be essential to ensure the integration of ML tools into the clinical workflow. A well-defined
clinical utility with clinically relevant parameters and actionable alerts ensured the usefulness of the ML
tools. Securing funding was seen as a significant challenge to overcome to support all phases of ML model
development and deployment. Partnerships with vendors could be considered to help overcome challenges
associated with translation and the long-term sustainability of model deployment[33].
The generalizability of ML models to the real-world clinical realm can be limited despite rigorous internal
and external validation studies. It has been shown that the real-world introduction of ML models sometimes
leads to lower accuracy and higher false positives[34]. This discrepancy between experimentation and reality
can be partially due to the datasets used. Research datasets have been shown to be constrained by stringent
inclusion and exclusion criteria[35,36]. Clinical deployment, therefore, requires close model and output
monitoring, followed by adjustments. Another aspect of validation can be the challenges in data sharing. In
that regard, “federated learning” could enable the use of large multi-institution datasets by decentralizing
data analysis and sharing computational models rather than data[37].
A disconnect between developers and users may sometimes occur. The technical expert team developing
craniofacial surgery ML models may not be versed in the clinical needs and settings in which the technology
will be deployed. An in-depth understanding of the clinical environments is key for both the development
and translation of the ML tools to the bedside. Are there support team members available to perform data
entry? Is the information obtained novel or more accurate than the one recorded from conventional clinical
assessment? Can the outputs be easily interpreted? Are the output results clinically relevant and helpful in
guiding the management of patients?[35]. The clinical utility of ML models needs to be properly estimated
and clinical needs should therefore guide model development and tool creation.
Fostering clinical trust
Beyond weighing the recognized benefits and risks of the introduction of ML and AI in their practices,
surgeons may experience a distrust toward AI systems and their outputs. This skepticism may come from a
lack of transparency or understanding of the processes. The explainability factor is important for users in
the context of clinical decision support systems[38,39]. Explainable AI (XAI) is an emerging field bridging
humans with machines by enabling a better understanding of how a model’s decisions and predictions were
made[40,41]. For clinicians to trust AI and ML models, such bidirectional dialogue and reasoning is crucial.
Using XAI involves significant trade-offs, such as the cost of its incorporation. Costs mostly come from the
computation required to create a dialogue and learning capabilities between the model and clinician.
Another identified trade-off lies between performance and interpretability. It appears that the models
offering the best performance metrics are also often the least explainable[42]. As medicine strives for the best
clinical performance and outcomes, deployment of explainable yet less performant models may be
questionable. Ultimately, surgeons will have to justify clinical decisions with models that they trust and can
understand in order to provide optimal machine-augmented care. Explainability can help answer some
ethical, societal, and regulatory apprehensions and requirements if paired with rigorous model validation
techniques and bias assessments[38]. To sustainably translate ML models into clinical practice, XAI appears
to be a fundamental investment that requires further attention and development. However, it is important
to note that model explainability is not a substitute for model evaluation following evidence-based medicine
best practices and robust statistical validation.
Sustainability after clinical translation
The long-term sustainability of ML in practice requires financial support for data quality and access,
governance, security, continuous model validation, and operational deployment. The implementation of AI
models in clinical practice may also require the creation of new roles to facilitate the adoption and
Page 432 Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69
maintenance of AI algorithms, such as data scientists and machine learning operations (MLOps) engineers.
For example, MLOps engineers will help create systems that continuously monitor models to ensure a
decline in model performance does not occur without clinical and operational teams being aware. This is
critical as models can decline in performance based on data drift and other changes in the clinical real-
world environment. To support this, business models and associated governance structures should be
created[43]. They may vary in size and range from innovation clusters, combining local expertise in AI,
translational research, digital health, statistics, and more, to centers of excellence in large organizations[44].
Final thoughts
As we enter an age of increased intersections between society, data, and technology, we will notice the rapid
proliferation of ML models migrating from development labs into real-world surgical settings. We
recommend craniofacial surgeons be open and enthusiastic about upcoming ML models and tools but also
aware of their numerous limitations. Clinical deployment of such models is arduous yet promising for the
advancement of surgical care at the patient, team and system levels. Successful and safe integration of these
models into practice requires input from surgeons. Although clinical expertise cannot be replaced at this
time, it can be augmented by ML models, and surgeons should not be afraid of being innovators or early
adopters if they are equipped with knowledge and awareness.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge - Stephen Hawking
DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Made substantial contributions to the conception, literature search, writing and review of the study: Roy M,
Reid RR, Senkaiahliyan S, Doria AS, Phillips JH, Brudno M, Singh D
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Financial support and sponsorship
None.
Conflicts of interest
Singh D is the co-founder and CEO of a Canadian healthcare technology start-up company called Hero AI,
while the other authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2024.
REFERENCES
Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019;25:44-56. DOI PubMed1.
Hernandez-Boussard T, Bozkurt S, Ioannidis JPA, Shah NH. MINIMAR (MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting):
developing reporting standards for artificial intelligence in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020;27:2011-5. DOI PubMed PMC
2.
Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can electronic clinical documentation help prevent diagnostic errors? N Engl J Med 2010;362:1066-9. DOI 3.
Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69 Page 433
PubMed
Mak ML, Al-Shaqsi SZ, Phillips J. Prevalence of machine learning in craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2020;31:898-903. DOI
PubMed
4.
Jarvis T, Thornburg D, Rebecca AM, Teven CM. Artificial intelligence in plastic surgery: current applications, future directions, and
ethical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:e3200. DOI PubMed PMC
5.
Kanevsky J, Corban J, Gaster R, Kanevsky A, Lin S, Gilardino M. Big data and machine learning in plastic surgery: a new frontier in
surgical innovation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137:890e-7e. DOI PubMed
6.
Zhu VZ, Tuggle CT, Au AF. Promise and limitations of big data research in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2016;76:453-8. DOI
PubMed
7.
Kim YJ, Kelley BP, Nasser JS, Chung KC. Implementing precision medicine and artificial intelligence in plastic surgery: concepts and
future prospects. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2113. DOI PubMed PMC
8.
Murphy DC, Saleh DB. Artificial intelligence in plastic surgery: what is it? Where are we now? What is on the horizon? Ann R Coll
Surg Engl 2020;102:577-80. DOI PubMed PMC
9.
Dhillon H, Chaudhari PK, Dhingra K, et al. Current applications of artificial intelligence in cleft care: a scoping review. Front Med
2021;8:676490. DOI PubMed PMC
10.
Wu J, Tse R, Shapiro LG. Learning to rank the severity of unrepaired cleft lip nasal deformity on 3D mesh data. Proc IAPR Int Conf
Pattern Recogn 2014;2014:460-4. DOI PubMed PMC
11.
Maier A, Hönig F, Bocklet T, et al. Automatic detection of articulation disorders in children with cleft lip and palate. J Acoust Soc Am
2009;126:2589-602. DOI PubMed
12.
Bouletreau P, Makaremi M, Ibrahim B, Louvrier A, Sigaux N. Artificial intelligence: applications in orthognathic surgery. J Stomatol
Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;120:347-54. DOI PubMed
13.
Patcas R, Bernini DAJ, Volokitin A, Agustsson E, Rothe R, Timofte R. Applying artificial intelligence to assess the impact of
orthognathic treatment on facial attractiveness and estimated age. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;48:77-83. DOI PubMed
14.
Du W, Bi W, Liu Y, Zhu Z, Tai Y, Luo E. Machine learning-based decision support system for orthognathic diagnosis and treatment
planning. BMC Oral Health 2024;24:286. DOI PubMed PMC
15.
Qamar A, Bangi SF, Barve R. Artificial intelligence applications in diagnosing and managing non-syndromic craniosynostosis: a
comprehensive review. Cureus 2023;15:e45318. DOI PubMed PMC
16.
Mashouri P, Skreta M, Phillips J, et al. 3D photography based neural network craniosynostosis triaging system. In: Proceedings of the
Machine Learning for Health NeurIPS Workshop PMLR; 2020. pp.226-37. Available from: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v136/
mashouri20a.html. [Last accessed on 5 Dec 2024].
17.
Pham TD, Holmes SB, Coulthard P. A review on artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of fractures in facial trauma imaging. Front
Artif Intell 2023;6:1278529. DOI PubMed PMC
18.
Wang HC, Wang SC, Yan JL, Ko LW. Artificial intelligence model trained with sparse data to detect facial and cranial bone fractures
from head CT. J Digit Imaging 2023;36:1408-18. DOI PubMed PMC
19.
Moon G, Lee D, Kim WJ, Kim Y, Sung KY, Choi HS. Very fast, high-resolution aggregation 3D detection CAM to quickly and
accurately find facial fracture areas. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2024;256:108379. DOI
20.
Moon G, Kim S, Kim W, Kim Y, Jeong Y, Choi H. Computer aided facial bone fracture diagnosis (CA-FBFD) system based on object
detection model. IEEE Access 2022;10:79061-70. DOI
21.
Wang X, Xu Z, Tong Y, et al. Detection and classification of mandibular fracture on CT scan using deep convolutional neural network.
Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:4593-601. DOI
22.
Roy M, Corkum JP, Shah PS, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the use of gracilis muscle for dynamic smile restoration in facial
paralysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019;72:1254-64. DOI
23.
Boonipat T, Asaad M, Lin J, Glass GE, Mardini S, Stotland M. Using artificial intelligence to measure facial expression following
facial reanimation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;146:1147-50. DOI PubMed
24.
Dusseldorp JR, Guarin DL, van Veen MM, Miller M, Jowett N, Hadlock TA. Automated spontaneity assessment after smile
reanimation: a machine learning approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022;149:1393-402. DOI PubMed
25.
Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, Balu S. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels.
NPJ Digit Med 2020;3:41. DOI PubMed PMC
26.
Castelvecchi D. Can we open the black box of AI? Nature 2016;538:20-3. DOI PubMed27.
Knight W. The dark secret at the heart of AI. Available from: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/11/5113/the-dark-secret-at-
the-heart-of-ai/. [Last accessed on 5 Dec 2024].
28.
Buolamwini J, Gebru T. Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Proceedings of the
1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR; 2018. pp. 77-91. Available from: https://proceedings.mlr.press/
v81/buolamwini18a.html?mod=article_inline&ref=akusion-ci-shi-dai-bizinesumedeia. [Last accessed on 5 Dec 2024].
29.
Kish LJ, Topol EJ. Unpatients-why patients should own their medical data. Nat Biotechnol 2015;33:921-4. DOI PubMed30.
Murdoch B. Privacy and artificial intelligence: challenges for protecting health information in a new era. BMC Med Ethics
2021;22:122. DOI PubMed PMC
31.
Brundage M, Avin S, Clark J, et al. The malicious use of artificial intelligence: forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. ArXiv.
[Preprint.] Dec 1, 2024 [accessed 2024 Dec 5].Available from: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.07228.
32.
Page 434 Roy et al. Art Int Surg 2024;4:427-34 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ais.2024.69
Watson J, Hutyra CA, Clancy SM, et al. Overcoming barriers to the adoption and implementation of predictive modeling and machine
learning in clinical care: what can we learn from US academic medical centers? JAMIA Open 2020;3:167-72. DOI PubMed PMC
33.
Salehinejad H, Kitamura J, Ditkofsky N, et al. A real-world demonstration of machine learning generalizability in the detection of
intracranial hemorrhage on head computerized tomography. Sci Rep 2021;11:17051. DOI PubMed PMC
34.
Mechelli A, Vieira S. From models to tools: clinical translation of machine learning studies in psychosis. NPJ Schizophr 2020;6:4.
DOI PubMed PMC
35.
Patel R, Oduola S, Callard F, et al. What proportion of patients with psychosis is willing to take part in research? A mental health
electronic case register analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013113. DOI PubMed PMC
36.
Collaborative learning without sharing data. Nat Mach Intell 2021;3:459. DOI37.
Antoniadi AM, Du Y, Guendouz Y, et al. Current challenges and future opportunities for XAI in machine learning-based clinical
decision support systems: a systematic review. Appl Sci 2021;11:5088. DOI
38.
Bussone A, Stumpf S, O’Sullivan D. The role of explanations on trust and reliance in clinical decision support systems. In: 2015
International Conference on Healthcare Informatics; 2015 Oct 21-23; Dallas, USA. IEEE; 2015. pp. 160-9. DOI
39.
Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI; Precise4Q consortium. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a
multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020;20:310. DOI PubMed PMC
40.
Barredo Arrieta A, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities
and challenges toward responsible AI. Inform Fusion 2020;58:82-115. DOI
41.
Linardatos P, Papastefanopoulos V, Kotsiantis S. Explainable AI: a review of machine learning interpretability methods. Entropy
2020;23:18. DOI PubMed PMC
42.
Accuracy. Artificial Intelligence Episode 1 - overview of leading artificial intelligence clusters around the globe. Available from:
https://www.accuracy.com/perspectives/overview-leading-artificial-intelligence-clusters-around-globe. [Last accessed on 5 Dec 2024].
43.
McKinsey and Company. Transforming healthcare with AI: the impact on the workforce and organizations. Available from: https://
www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/transforming-healthcare-with-ai. [Last accessed on 5 Dec
2024].
44.
