Back to Authors

Longo, Umile Giuseppe

0000-0003-4063-9821

Mayo Clinic

Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Roma Italy.

Citations 2

A practical guide to the implementation of AI in orthopaedic research—Part 7: Risks, limitations, safety and verification of medical AI systems
Winkler, Philipp W. , Senorski, Eric Hamrin , Tischer, Thomas , Herbst, Elmar , Pareek, Ayoosh , Musahl, Volker , Oettl, Felix C. , Group, ESSKA Artificial Intelligence Working, Hamrin Senorski, Eric , Longo, Umile Giuseppe , Samuelsson, Kristian , Zsidai, Bálint , Pruneski, James A. , Hirschmann, Michael T. , Ley, Christophe , Oeding, Jacob F. , Oettl, Felix C. , Longo, Umile Giuseppe , Samuelsson, Kristian , Feldt, Robert , Group, ESSKA Artificial Intelligence Working

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics | April 24, 2025 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/jeo2.70247 Get It

AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) has been influencing healthcare and medical research for several years and will likely become indispensable in the near future. AI is intended to support healthcare professionals to make the healthcare system more efficient and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Despite the numerous benefits of AI systems, significant concerns remain. Errors in AI systems can pose serious risks to human health, underscoring the critical need for safety, as well as adherence to ethical and moral standards, before these technologies can be integrated into clinical practice. To address these challenges, the development, certification, and deployment of medical AI systems must adhere to strict and transparent regulations. The European Commission has already established a regulatory framework for AI systems by enacting the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. This review article, part of an AI learning series, discusses key considerations for medical AI systems such as reliability, accuracy, trustworthiness, lawfulness and legal compliance, ethical and moral alignment, sustainability, and regulatory oversight.Level of EvidenceLevel V.
Artificial intelligence‐assisted ultrasound‐guided regional anaesthesia: An explorative scoping review
Marino, Martina , Hagh, Rebecca, Senorski, Eric Hamrin , Longo, Umile Giuseppe , Oeding, Jacob F. , Szell, Anita , Samuelsson, Kristian , Hamrin Senorski, Eric , Samuelsson, Kristian , Oeding, Jacob F , Longo, Umile Giuseppe , Nellgård, Bengt

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics | August 14, 2024 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/jeo2.12104 Get It

AbstractPurposeThe present study reviews the available scientific literature on artificial intelligence (AI)‐assisted ultrasound‐guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA) and evaluates the reported intraprocedural parameters and postprocedural outcomes.MethodsA literature search was performed on 19 September 2023, using the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases by experts in electronic searching. All study designs were considered with no restrictions regarding patient characteristics or cohort size. Outcomes assessed included the accuracy of AI‐model tracking, success at the first attempt, differences in outcomes between AI‐assisted and unassisted UGRA, operator feedback and case‐report data.ResultsA joint adaptive median binary pattern (JAMBP) has been applied to improve the tracking procedure, while a particle filter (PF) is involved in feature extraction. JAMBP combined with PF was most accurate on all images for landmark identification, with accuracy scores of 0.83, 0.93 and 0.93 on original, preprocessed and filtered images, respectively. Evaluation of first‐attempt success of spinal needle insertion revealed first‐attempt success in most patients. When comparing AI application versus UGRA alone, a significant statistical difference (p < 0.05) was found for correct block view, correct structure identification and decrease in mean injection time, needle track adjustments and bone encounters in favour of having AI assistance. Assessment of operator feedback revealed that expert and nonexpert operator feedback was overall positive.ConclusionAI appears promising to enhance UGRA as well as to positively influence operator training. AI application of UGRA may improve the identification of anatomical structures and provide guidance for needle placement, reducing the risk of complications and improving patient outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.