Esteva A. Chou K. Yeung S. et al.

Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision.

NPJ Digit Med. 4 (): 1-9Litjens G. Kooi T. Bejnordi Babak E. et al.

A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis.

Med Image Anal. 42: 60-88

Mat Isa Nor Ashidi, Amylia Harsa, Mat Sakim Harsa. Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis for Microcalcifications in Mammogram: A Review 2022.

Hologic . ImageChecker® 2D CAD Technology 2022.

Why CAD failed in mammography.

J Am Coll Radiol. 15 (): 535-537Ezugwu Absalom El-Shamir Oyelade Olaide Nathaniel

A state-of-the-art survey on deep learn- ing methods for detection of architectural distortion from digital mammography.

IEEE Access. 8 (): 148644-148676Lehman Constance D. Wellman Robert D. Buist Diana S.M. et al.

Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection.

JAMA Intern Med. 175: 1828-1837Nishikawa R.M. Schmidt R.A. Linver M.N. et al.

Clinically missed cancer: how effectively can radiologists use computer-aided detection?.

Am J Roentgenol. 198: 708-716Fenton Joshua J. Abraham Linn Taplin Stephen H. et al.

Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice.

JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 103: 1152-1161McKinney S.M. Sieniek M. Godbole V. et al.International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening Nature. 577. : 89-94 ()

Bai Nina. Artificial Intelligence That Reads Chest X-Rays Is Approved by FDA UC San Francisco 2019.

Critical care suite on mobile and fixed x-ray systems.

GE Healthcare, Portet F. Reiter E. Gatt A. et al.

Automatic generation of textual summaries from neonatal intensive care data.

Artif Intelligence. 173: 789-816

Generation of natural-language textual summaries from lon- gitudinal clinical records MEDINFO 2015.

eHealth-enabled health. (): 594-598

An automated knowledge-based textual summarization system for longitudinal, multivariate clinical data.

J Biomed Inform. 61: 159-175

Hallett Catalina, Scott Donia. Structural variation in generated health reports in Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005) 2005.

Hallett C, Power R, Scott D. Summarisation and visualisation of e-Health data repositories in Proceedings of the UK e-science all hands meeting 2006.

Harkema Henk, Roberts Ian, Gaizauskas Robert, et al. Information Extraction from Clinical Records in Proceedings of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting 2005.

Scott D. Hallett C. Fettiplace R.

Data-to-text summarisation of patient records: Using computer-generated summaries to access patient histories.

Patient Educ Couns. 92: 153-159Bilimoria Karl Y. Liu Y. Paruch Jennifer L. et al.

Development and Evaluation of the Universal ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator: A Decision Aid and Informed Consent Tool for Patients and Surgeons.

J Am Coll Surg. 217: 833-842.e3Liu Yaoming Cohen Mark E. Hall Bruce L. et al.

Evaluation and Enhancement of Calibration in the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.

J Am Coll Surg. 223: 231-239Hornor Melissa A. Ma Meixi Zhou Lynn et al.

Enhancing the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator to Predict Geriatric Outcomes.

J Am Coll Surg. 230: 88-100.e1Woltman H. Feldstain A. MacKay J. et al.

An Introduction to Hierarchical Lin- ear Modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 52-69.

Quantitative Methods Psychol tutorial. 8: 52-69Cohen Mark E. Ko Clifford Y. Bilimoria Karl Y. et al.

Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for eval- uation of surgical quality and risk: patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus.

J Am Coll Surg. 217: 336-346.e1Bertsimas D. Dunn J. Velmahos George C. et al.

Surgical Risk is not linear: derivation and validation of a novel, user-friendly, and machine-learning-based predictive optimal trees in emergency surgery risk (POTTER) Calculator.

Ann Surg. 268: 574-583Breiman L. Friedman Jerome H. Olshen Richard A. et al.

Classification and Re- gression trees.

Chapman and Hall/CRC1st edition, Boca Raton, Fla

Random Forests.

Machine Learn. 45: 5-32Kingsford C. Salzberg S.L.

What are decision trees?.

Nat Biotechnol. 26 (): 1011-1013

XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international Conference on knowledge Discovery and data mining.

arXiv. 785–794 ()Bertsimas Dimitris Dunn Jack

Optimal classification trees.

Machine Learn. 106: 1039-1082Morgan R.J.M. William F. Wright M.M.

An early warning scoring system for detecting developing critical.

Illness. 8: 100Subbe C.P. Kruger M. Rutherford P. et al.

Validation of a modified Early Warning Score in medical admissions.

QJM: monthly J Assoc Physicians. 94: 521-526Royal College of Physicians of London

National early warning score (NEWS): standardising the assessment of acute-illness severity in the NHS.

Royal College of Physicians, London, UK ()

National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) standardising the assessment of acute-illness severity in the NHS (London).

Royal College of Physicians, London, UKShelley Schoepflin Sanders Scott Marsal

An electronic modified early warning system can reduce mortality.

Harv Business Rev. ()

Keeping the nurse at the bedside: implementing electronic recording of the national early warning score.

Cerner, United Kingdom

Health system uses Epic EHR, communications tech to reduce sepsis mortality rate by 20%.

Healthcare IT News. Eccles Sinan R. Subbe C. Hancock D. et al.

improving speci- ficity whilst maintaining sensitivity of the National Early Warning Score in patients with chronic hypoxaemia.

Resuscitation. 85: 109-111Keim-Malpass J. Clark Matthew T. Lake Douglas E. Moorman J.R.

Towards de- velopment of alert thresholds for clinical deterioration using continuous predictive analytics mon- itoring.

J Clin Monit Comput. 34: 797-804Shickel B. Tighe Patrick J. Bihorac A. Rashidi P.

Deep EHR: a survey of recent advances in deep learning techniques for electronic health record (EHR) analysis.

IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 22 (): 1589-1604Guo Aixia Beheshti R. Khan Yosef M. et al.

Pre- dicting cardiovascular health trajectories in time-series electronic health records with LSTM mod- els.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 21: 5Saqib M. Sha Y. Wang May D.

Early prediction of sepsis in EMR records using traditional ML Techniques and Deep Learning LSTM Networks in 2018.

EMBC. 4038–4041: 1558-4615Yin C. Zhao R. Qian B. et al.

Domain knowledge guided deep learning with electronic health records in 2019.

IEEE international Conference on data mining (ICDM). 738–747: 2374-8486Staudemeyer Ralf C. Morris Eric R.

Understanding LSTM – a tutorial into long short- term memory recurrent neural networks.

arXiv. 1909 (): 09586Thorsen-Meyer H.C. Nielsen Annelaura B. Nielsen Anna P. et al.

Dynamic and ex- plainable machine learning prediction of mortality in patients in the intensive care unit: a ret- rospective study of high-frequency data in electronic patient records.

Lancet Digital Health. 2: e179-e191Johnson Alistair E.W. Pollard Tom J. Shen L. et al.

MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database.

Sci Data. 3 (): 160035

In. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions.

arXiv. 1705 (): 07874Tian N.F. Huang Q.S. Zhou P. et al.

Pedicle screw insertion accuracy with different assisted methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Eur Spine J. 20: 846-859Gelalis Ioannis D. Paschos Nikolaos K. Pakos Emilios E. et al.

Accuracy of pedicle screw place- ment: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques.

Eur Spine J. 21: 247-255Tang J. Zhu Z. Sui T. et al.

Position and complications of pedicle screw insertion with or without image-navigation techniques in the thoracolumbar spine: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

J Biomed Res. 28: 228-239Elmi-Terander A. Burström G. Nachabe R. et al.

Pedicle screw placement using augmented reality surgical navigation with intraoperative 3d imaging: a first in-human prospective cohort study.

Spine. 44: 517-525Yahanda Alexander T. Moore E. Ray Wilson Z. et al.

First in-human report of the clinical accuracy of thoracolumbar percutaneous pedicle screw placement using augmented reality guidance.

Neurosurg Focus. 51 (): E10Dennler C. Jaberg L. Spirig J. et al.

Augmented reality-based navigation increases precision of pedicle screw insertion.

J Orthopaedic Surg Res. 15: 174Vadal`a G. Salvatore S.D. Ambrosio L. et al.

Robotic spine surgery and augmented reality systems: a state of the art.

Neurospine. 17: 88-100Dreval’ O.N. Rynkov I.P. Kasparova K.A. et al.

[Results of using Spine Assist Mazor in surgical treatment of spine disorders].

Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 78: 14-20Dijk Joris D. Ende Roy P.J. Stramigioli S. et al.

Clinical pedicle screw accuracy and deviation from planning in robot-guided spine surgery: robot-guided pedicle screw accuracy.

Spine. 40: E986-E991Kantelhardt S.R. Martinez R. Baerwinkel S. Burger R. et al.

Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement.

Eur Spine J. 20: 860-868Fan Y. Du J. Zhang J. et al.

Comparison of accuracy of pedicle screw insertion among 4 guided technologies in spine surgery.

Med Sci Monit. 23: 5960-5968

Worth the cost? A closer look at the da Vinci robot’s impact on prostate cancer surgery.

Nature. 580 (): S5-S7

Song Hyunwoo, Moradi Hamid, Jiang Baichuan, et al. Real-time intraoperative surgical guidance system in the da Vinci surgical robot based on transrectal ultrasound/photoacoustic imaging with photoacoustic markers: an ex vivo demonstration 2022.

Boggs Will. Robotic-assisted surgery: more expensive, but not always more effective Reuters.2017.

The robotic surgery era and the role of laparoscopy training.

Ther Adv Urol. 1: 161-165Coughlin Geoffrey D. Yaxley John W. Chambers Suzanne K. et al.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a ran- domised controlled study.

Lancet Oncol. 19: 1051-1060Zhou J.Y. Xin C. Mou Y.P. et al.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

PLoS One. 11 (): e0151189Baik Seung H. Kwon H.Y. Kim Jin S. et al.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study.

Ann Surg Oncol. 16: 1480-1487Panesar S. Cagle Y. Chander D. et al.

Artificial intelligence and the future of surgical robotics.

Ann Surg. 270: 223-226Golse N. Petit A. Lewin M. et al.

Augmented reality during open liver surgery using a markerless non-rigid registration system.

J Gas- trointestinal Surg. 25: 662-671Shademan A. Decker Ryan S. Opfermann Justin D. et al.

Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery.

Sci Transl Med. 8 (): 337ra64Shademan A. Dumont Matthieu F. Leonard S. et al.

Feasi- bility of near-infrared markers for guiding surgical robots in.

Opt Model Perform Predictions VI. 8840: 123-132Leonard S. Shademan A. Kim Y. et al.

Smart Tissue Anas- tomosis Robot (STAR): Accuracy evaluation for supervisory suturing using near-infrared fluores- cent markers in 2014.

IEEE international Conference on Robotics and automation (ICRA). 1889–1894: 1050-4729Leonard S. Wu Kyle L. Kim Y. et al.

Smart tissue anasto- mosis robot (STAR): a vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing.

IEEE Trans Actions Biomed Eng. 61 (): 1305-1317Decker R. Shademan A. Opfermann J. et al.

Performance evaluation and clinical applications of 3D plenoptic cameras in next-generation robotics machine intelligence bio-inspired.

Comput Theor Appl IX. 9494: 62-72

The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating charac- teristic (ROC) curve.

Radiology. 143: 29-36Pencina Michael J. D’Agostino Ralph B.

Evaluating discrimination of risk prediction models: the C statistic.

JAMA. 314: 1063-1064Fenlon C. O’Grady L. Doherty M.L. et al.

A discussion of calibra- tion techniques for evaluating binary and categorical predictive models.

Prev Vet Med. 149: 107-114Huang Y. Li W. Macheret F. et al.

A tu- torial on calibration measurements and calibration models for clinical prediction models.

J Am Med Inform Assoc. 27: 621-633Assel Melissa Sjoberg Daniel D. Vickers Andrew J.

The Brier score does not evaluate the clinical utility of diagnostic tests or prediction models.

Diagn Progn Res. 1 (): 1-7Hernandez-Boussard T. Bozkurt S. Ioannidis John P.A. Shah Nigam H.

MINIMAR (MIN- imum Information for Medical AI Reporting): developing reporting standards for artificial intelli- gence in health care.

J Am Med Inform Assoc. 27 (): 2011-2015Lam Kyle Abramoff Michael D. Balibrea Jośe M. et al.

A Delphi consensus statement for digital surgery.

NPJ Dig Med. 5 (): 1-9O’Reilly-Shah Vikas N. Gentry Katherine R. Walters Andrew M. et al.

Bias and ethical considerations in machine learning and the automation of perioperative risk assessment.

BJA: Br J Anaesth. 125: 843-846

Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification.

Conf Fairness, Account Transparency. 81: 77-91

Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0.