Nathani, Ali-Muhammad

Background: Estimating operative time with low accuracy and precision leads to suboptimal scheduling of available operating rooms (ORs) and waste of healthcare resources. We aimed to develop a predictive machine learning (ML) model for operative time using our institutional data to improve the scheduling of neurosurgical ORs, minimize waste, and maximize resource utilization. Methods: We developed a predictive model using our institution’s multicenter registry, which included diverse neurosurgical cases across three tertiary hospitals. We applied multiple ML techniques, including linear regression, support vector regression, deep neural networks, and extreme gradient boosting regression (XGBR). The best model was combined with the first fit decreasing bin-packing algorithm to create a practical OR scheduling system based on prior data. Results: The XGBR model exhibited the best performance, with lower mean absolute errors (MAEs) (root mean squared error: 52.24, MAE: 37.25) and higher R2 (0.76) values than other models. Implementing this model in a simulated OR scheduling scenario using institutional data, we successfully scheduled 30 random procedures with minimal residual time, such that the model ran out of procedures for the week with 86 and 171 min remaining in the cranial and spinal ORs, respectively, demonstrating potential efficiency gains. The cranial procedures were scheduled over 4 days and spinal procedures over 6 days, optimizing available OR time. Conclusion: Integrating ML models into operative time prediction can significantly improve the accuracy and efficiency of surgical schedules. This approach minimizes wasted OR time and enhances resource allocation, potentially improving patient outcomes and satisfaction by reducing waiting times.

OBJECTIVE Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly capable of academic writing, with large language models such as ChatGPT showing potential to assist or even generate scientific manuscripts. However, concerns remain regarding the quality, reliability, and interpretive capabilities of AI-generated content. The authors’ study aimed to compare the quality of a human-written versus an AI-generated scientific manuscript to evaluate the strengths and limitations of AI in the context of academic publishing. METHODS Two manuscripts were developed using identical titles, abstracts, and tables of a simulated analysis: one authored by a physician with multiple publications, and the other generated by ChatGPT-4o. Three independent and blinded reviewers—two human and one AI—assessed each manuscript across five domains: clarity and readability, coherence and flow, technical accuracy, depth, and conciseness and precision. Each category was scored on a 10-point scale, and qualitative feedback was collected to highlight specific strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, all reviewers were asked to deduce authorship of the manuscripts. RESULTS The AI-generated manuscript scored higher in clarity and readability (mean 9.0 vs 7.2), but lower in technical accuracy (mean 6.3 vs 9.3) and depth (mean 5.5 vs 7.5). However, reviewers noted that the AI version lacked depth, critical analysis, and contextual interpretation. All reviewers accurately identified the authorship of each manuscript and tended to rate the version more favorably when it aligned with their own origin (human or AI); i.e., human reviewers assigned higher scores to the human-written manuscript, while the AI reviewer scored the AI-generated manuscript higher. CONCLUSIONS Although AI models can improve some aspects of scientific writing, particularly clarity and readability, they fall short in critical reasoning and contextual understanding. This reinforces the importance of human authorship and oversight in maintaining the critical analysis and scientific accuracy essential for academic publishing. AI may be used as a complementary tool to support, rather than replace, human-led scientific writing.