Ethical Pitfalls in AI-Based Predictive Models in Surgery

Review (2025)
Author(s)

Sara Ben Hmido (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Houssam Abder Rahim (Student TU Delft)

Boris Keller (Student TU Delft)

Freek Daams (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Matthijs Schakel (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

J. Carel Goslings (Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis)

E. J.M. Nieveen van Dijkum (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC)

Stephen Rainey (TU Delft - Technology, Policy and Management, TU Delft - Technology, Policy and Management)

Geert Kazemier (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Marieke Bak (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Corrette Ploem (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Research Group
Ethics & Philosophy of Technology
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70080 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Research Group
Ethics & Philosophy of Technology
Journal title
World Journal of Surgery
Issue number
10
Volume number
49
Pages (from-to)
2837-2845
Downloads counter
135
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Background: Predictive models in surgery promise to improve clinical care by anticipating complications, guiding decision-making, and supporting personalized treatment strategies. Although their potential to enhance outcomes and efficiency is substantial, their integration into clinical practice also raises profound ethical challenges. Ethical Framework: These challenges span the entire lifecycle of predictive models from data collection and development to validation and clinical use. They touch upon patient privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency, and the shifting responsibilities of clinicians. Importantly, the ethical concerns are not isolated to one group but shared across patients, developers, and clinicians within a dynamic stakeholder relationship. Analysis: Key risks include biased or unrepresentative datasets, privacy breaches, opaque decision-making processes, and the danger of deskilling surgeons if reliance on algorithms becomes excessive. To mitigate these risks, strategies, such as out-of-distribution detection, standardized data collection, parallel model development, and continuous auditing, are essential. Beyond technical safeguards, embedding predictive models within a framework of accountability and patient-centered care is necessary to sustain trust and equity. Conclusion: The integration of predictive models into surgery requires more than technical excellence, and it demands ethical vigilance. Preparing future clinicians through education that emphasizes both clinical reasoning and ethical awareness is critical. By aligning predictive model development with human-centered values, healthcare systems can ensure that these innovations enhance surgical practice while safeguarding equity, transparency, and patient trust.