Lee, Frank G.

ABSTRACT Background Evaluating fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) is essential before clinical implementation to prevent unintended harm across diverse patient populations. This study assesses performance differences of an image-based surgical site infection (SSI) detection model across age, gender, geography, race, and skin color. Methods Model development/validation study using retrospective, multicenter data across surgical subspecialties from adults who submitted an image of their incision via the electronic health record within 30 days of their procedure between 2019-2024. Area under receiver operating curve (AUROC) was compared by age (<55 vs. ≥55 years old), gender (male vs. female), geography (Rochester, Minnesota vs. Jacksonville, Florida vs. Scottsdale, Arizona vs. regional Minnesota/Wisconsin areas), race (White/Caucasian vs. non-White/Caucasian), and skin color (Fitpatrick I-III vs. IV-VI and Monk A-E vs. F-J). Results Training data contained 13,702 images from 4,274 patients between 2019-2022 (50.1% ≥55 years old; 63.2% female; 91.6% White/Caucasian; 58.5% Rochester, 17.3% Florida, 10.5% Arizona; 96.3% light skin tone), of which 1,348 images (9.8%) had an SSI. No differences in SSI detection existed for age, gender, race, or skin color (AUROC 0.83-0.87, p>0.09), however geographical differences were significant: lowest AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.88) vs. highest AUROC 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89, p=0.01). Temporal validation using 4,242 images from 1,353 patients between 2022-2023 showed intact fairness across subgroups (ΔAUROC ≤0.06) except geography (ΔAUROC ≤0.16). Conclusions The model behaved fairly across age, gender, race, and skin color, however geographical differences persisted. These findings have practical implications underscoring the importance of evaluating bias in clinical AI before deployment.

ABSTRACT Background ACS‐NSQIP began capturing operative approach in 2022. With increased adoption of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques for malignancy, a contemporary review of benchmark outcomes for open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy is warranted. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults in ACS‐NSQIP (2022–2024) undergoing partial or total gastrectomy (CPT 43631‐4 and 43620‐2) for cancer. Outcomes included operative time, length of stay (LOS), unplanned conversion‐to‐open, and 30‐day morbidity, mortality, and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated patient and operative factors associated with morbidity. Results Among 1,459 patients (median age 66, 60.4% male), 66.8% underwent partial gastrectomy and 33.2% total gastrectomy. Approaches were 61.2% open, 19.5% laparoscopic, and 19.3% robotic. Thirty‐day mortality (1.8%), major complications (18.2%), and readmissions (10.3%) did not differ by approach. Unplanned conversion‐to‐open occurred in 14.0% of MIS. Robotic had longer median operative time of +1.2 and +1.7 h than laparoscopic and open and median −1 and −2 days shorter LOS respectively ( p < 0.001). Hypoalbuminemia (OR 3.10), CKD ≥ 3 (OR 1.75), and anemia (OR 1.48) were independently associated with major complications ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Operative approach influences operative time and LOS but not short‐term morbidity and mortality. The newly available ACS‐NSQIP operative approach variable enables approach‐specific benchmarks for cancer‐related gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: The Ventral Rectopexy International Expert Panel recently published a consensus update on ventral rectopexy. The ability of large language models to synthesize the literature on ventral rectopexy without an explicit knowledge base was studied before the publication of the consensus. OBJECTIVE: To compare the responses and citations of different large language models on ventral rectopexy using the expert panel consensus as the reference standard. DESIGN: ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and OpenEvidence were compared on content appropriateness (1 = inappropriate to 5 = appropriate), readability (Flesch reading ease), response length, citation fabrication, and citation quality per Oxford Levels of Evidence. The most content-appropriate chatbot response selected by the expert panel was de-identified and presented alongside the consensus text to 15 colorectal surgeons who attempted to identify the chatbot-generated text. SETTINGS: Questions were submitted from September 18 to 19, 2024. Analysis was performed before the online publication of the consensus on January 30, 2025. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures included content appropriateness, fabricated citation rate, citation quality, and the accuracy of identifying human versus chatbot text by colorectal surgeons. RESULTS: OpenEvidence ranked highest for content appropriateness (mean 3.5/5), above Gemini (3.0/5) and ChatGPT (2.8/5; p < 0.001). ChatGPT was most verbose with the highest readability scores ( p = 0.021). ChatGPT fabricated 53% of citations; Gemini fabricated 12%; OpenEvidence fabricated 0% ( p < 0.001). All OpenEvidence citations were peer reviewed, with 40 of 117 (34%) citing level I to III studies compared with 46 of 94 (49%) of the references cited in the consensus ( p = 0.043). Chatbot-generated responses were identified with 28 of 51 (55%) accuracy. LIMITATIONS: Reproducibility may be affected due to the nature of large language models and the availability of the consensus after publication. CONCLUSIONS: OpenEvidence outperformed Gemini 1.5 Pro and ChatGPT-4o in content appropriateness and peer-reviewed citation quantity and quality. Chatbot-generated text was indistinguishable from expert-authored consensus to subject matter experts. Large language models, as an early-stage research tool, may be viable for future consensus working groups, provided transparent disclosure and rigorous oversight. See Video Abstract . ¿PUEDEN LOS MODELOS LINGÜÍSTICOS DE GRAN TAMAÑO SER UNA HERRAMIENTA VIABLE PARA LOS GRUPOS DE TRABAJO DE CONSENSO? LA EXPERIENCIA DEL GRUPO DE CONSENSO DE EXPERTOS EN RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL ANTECEDENTES: El Panel Internacional de Expertos en Rectopexia Ventral publicó recientemente una actualización consensuada sobre la rectopexia ventral. Antes de la publicación del consenso, se estudió la capacidad de los grandes modelos lingüísticos para sintetizar la bibliografía sobre la rectopexia ventral sin una base de conocimientos explícita. Objetivo: Comparar las respuestas y citas de diferentes grandes modelos lingüísticos sobre la rectopexia ventral utilizando el consenso del panel de expertos como estándar de referencia. DISEÑO: Se compararon ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro y OpenEvidence en cuanto a la idoneidad del contenido (1 = inadecuado a 5 = adecuado), la legibilidad (índice de legibilidad de Flesch), la longitud de la respuesta, la fabricación de citas y la calidad de las citas según los niveles de evidencia de Oxford. La respuesta del chatbot más adecuada en cuanto al contenido seleccionada por el panel de expertos se anonimizó y se presentó junto con el texto del consenso a 15 cirujanos colorrectales que intentaron identificar el texto generado por el chatbot. ENTORNO: Las preguntas se enviaron los días 18 y 19 de septiembre de 2024. El análisis se realizó antes de la publicación del consenso en línea el 30 de enero de 2025. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Adecuación del contenido, tasa de citas inventadas, calidad de las citas, precisión en la identificación del texto humano frente al del chatbot por parte de los cirujanos colorrectales. RESULTADOS: OpenEvidence obtuvo la puntuación más alta en cuanto a la adecuación del contenido (media de 3,5/5), por encima de Gemini (3,0/5) y ChatGPT (2,8/5) (p<0,001). ChatGPT fue el más prolijo, con las puntuaciones más altas en legibilidad (p = 0,021). ChatGPT inventó el 53% de las citas; Gemini inventó el 12 %; OpenEvidence inventó el 0 % (p < 0,001). Todas las citas de OpenEvidence fueron revisadas por pares, con 40/117 (34 %) que citaban estudios de nivel I-III frente a 46/94 (49 %) de las referencias citadas en el consenso (p = 0,043). Las respuestas generadas por el chatbot se identificaron con una precisión del 28/51 (55 %). LIMITACIONES: Reproducibilidad debido a la naturaleza de los modelos de lenguaje grandes y a la disponibilidad del consenso tras la publicación. CONCLUSIONES: OpenEvidence superó a Gemini 1.5 Pro y ChatGPT-4o en cuanto a la idoneidad del contenido y la cantidad y calidad de las citas revisadas por pares. El texto generado por el chatbot era indistinguible del consenso redactado por expertos para los expertos en la materia. Los modelos de lenguaje grandes como herramienta de investigación en fase inicial pueden ser viables para futuros grupos de trabajo de consenso, siempre que se garantice una divulgación transparente y una supervisión rigurosa. ( AI-generated translation )

The transplant selection process for solid organ recipients relies on committee review and is susceptible to human nature and bias. The current model of selection committees has been under-examined and untested. Few studies exist on transplant selection committees. Barriers to quality decision-making have been studied in other industries. Lessons learned in other industries were explored and how they may be applied to a transplant selection committee. These include appointing an ethical representative or an advocate (pro) and dissenter (against) for discussion, adopting an ideal committee size/composition, and reviewing previous committee decisions (post-mortem). The transplant selection committee can function beyond a singular decision and be an opportunity to identify gaps in patients’ treatment plans and available resources. Looking forward, a transplant selection committee that is more consistent, equitable, and protocolized can reduce bias, moral burden, and missed listings for our patients.