It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can now reliably assess surgeon skills through videos of intraoperative surgical activity. With such systems informing future high-stakes decisions such as whether to credential surgeons and grant them the privilege to operate on patients, it is critical that they treat all surgeons fairly. However, it remains an open question whether surgical AI systems exhibit bias against surgeon sub-cohorts, and, if so, whether such bias can be mitigated. Here, we examine and mitigate the bias exhibited by a family of surgical AI systems—SAIS—deployed on videos of robotic surgeries from three geographically-diverse hospitals (USA and EU). We show that SAIS exhibits an underskilling bias, erroneously downgrading surgical performance, and an overskilling bias, erroneously upgrading surgical performance, at different rates across surgeon sub-cohorts. To mitigate such bias, we leverage a strategy —TWIX—which teaches an AI system to provide a visual explanation for its skill assessment that otherwise would have been provided by human experts. We show that whereas baseline strategies inconsistently mitigate algorithmic bias, TWIX can effectively mitigate the underskilling and overskilling bias while simultaneously improving the performance of these AI systems across hospitals. We discovered that these findings carry over to the training environment where we assess medical students’ skills today. Our study is a critical prerequisite to the eventual implementation of AI-augmented global surgeon credentialing programs, ensuring that all surgeons are treated fairly.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 California Institute of Technology, Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, California, USA (GRID:grid.20861.3d) (ISNI:0000000107068890)
2 University of Southern California, Center for Robotic Simulation and Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, California, USA (GRID:grid.42505.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 6853)
3 Houston Methodist Hospital, Department of Urology, Texas, USA (GRID:grid.63368.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 0445 0041)
4 Pediatric Urology and Uro-Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius-Hospital, Department of Urology, Gronau, Germany (GRID:grid.490549.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 6102 8007)
5 Center for Neuroscience, Children’s National Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery, Washington DC, USA (GRID:grid.239560.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0482 1586)
6 Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Center for Surgery & Public Health, Department of Surgery, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.62560.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 0378 8294)