Authors
Savgachev V.V., Shubin L.B.
Yaroslavl State Medical University, Yaroslavl
Abstract
The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the healthcare sector has attracted widespread attention from the global medical community. The potential of AI applications in the field of traumatology, which is a race against time, is particularly noticeable. Trauma is the leading cause of death among people under the age of 40 worldwide, and the effectiveness and quality of treatment are directly related to survival and prognosis for patients. The traditional trauma treatment model is limited by factors such as uneven distribution of medical resources, differences in professional experience, and delayed diagnostic solutions, and there are many challenges that need to be addressed urgently. The intervention of artificial intelligence has opened up the possibility of revolutionary changes in traumatology. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of artificial intelligence in all aspects of traumatology, an in-depth analysis of its clinical value and limitations, as well as to offer practical recommendations based on the latest data. Through a systematic review of existing research, we hope to provide doctors, researchers, and policy makers with authoritative background information on the use of AI in traumatology.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, traumatology, injury diagnosis, treatment, prognosis.
References
1. Sereda AP, Dzhavadov AA, Chernyj AA. Artificial Intelligence in Traumatology and Orthopedics. Reality, Fantasy or Deception? Travmatologiya i ortopedia Rossii. 2024; 30(2): 181-191. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17816/ 2311-2905-17468.
2. Hamet P, Tremblay J. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism. 2017; 69: 36-40. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2017.01.011.
3. Topol E. Artificial intelligence in medicine. How smart technologies change the approach to treatment. М.: Alpina Digital Publ., 2019. (In Russ.)
4. Mintz Y, Brodie R. Introduction to artificial intelligence in medicine. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2019; 28: 73-81. doi: 10.1080/13645706. 2019.1575882.
5. Labovitz DL, Shafner L, Reyes Gil M, Virmani D, Hanina A. Using artificial intelligence to reduce the risk of nonadherence in patients on anticoagulation therapy. Stroke. 2017; 48: 1416-9. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116. 016281.
6. Mayo RC, Leung J. Artificial intelligence and deep learning – radiology’s next frontier? Clin Imaging. 2018; 49: 87-8. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag. 2017.11.007.
7. Abujaber A, Fadlalla A, Gammoh D, Abdelrahman H, Mollazehi M, El-Menyar A. Using trauma registry data to predict prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients with traumatic brain injury: machine learning approach. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(7): e0235231.
8. Ahmed FS, Ali L, Joseph BA, Ikram A, Ul Mustafa R, Bukhari SAC. A statistically rigorous deep neural-network approach to predict mortality in trauma patients admitted to the intensive-care unit. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020; 89(4): 736-42.
9. Hale AT, Stonko DP, Lim J, Guillamondegui OD, Shannon CN, Patel MB. Using an artificial neural network to predict traumatic-brain-injury outcomes. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018; 23(2): 219-26.
10. Matsuo K, Aihara H, Nakai T, Morishita A, Tohma Y, Kohmura E. Machine learning to predict in-hospital morbidity and mortality after traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2020; 37(1): 202-10.
11. Hunter OF, Perry F, Salehi M, et al. Science fiction or clinical reality: a review of the applications of artificial intelligence along the continuum of trauma care. World J Emerg Surg. 2023; 18: 16. doi: 10.1186/s13017-022-00469-1.
12. AlMamlook RE, Kwayu KM, Alkasisbeh MR, Frefer AA. Comparison of machine learning algorithms for predicting traffic accident severity. In: IEEE Jordan International Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (JEEIT). 2019: 272-6. doi: 10.1109/JEEIT.2019. 8717393.
13. Bao J, Liu P, Ukkusuri SV. A spatiotemporal deep learning approach for city-wide short-term crash-risk prediction with multimodal data. Accid Anal Prev. 2019; 122: 239-54.
14. Mansoor U, Ratrout NT, Rahman SM, Assi K. Crash severity prediction using two-layer ensemble machine learning model for proactive emergency management. IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 210750-62.
15. Torres-Garcia AA, Reyes-García CA, Villaseñor-Pineda L, Mendoza-Montoya O, eds. Biosignal Processing and Classification Using Computational Learning and Intelligence. Academic Press. 2022: 111-29.
16. Amiri AM, Sadri A, Nadimi N, Shams M. A comparison between artificial neural network and hybrid intelligent genetic algorithm in predicting the severity of fixed-object crashes among elderly drivers. Accid Anal Prev. 2020; 138: 105468.
17. Assi K. Prediction of traffic-crash-severity using deep neural networks: a comparative study. In: International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing and Technologies (3ICT). 2020: 1-6. doi: 10.1109/3ICT51146.2020.9311974.
18. Nederpelt CJ, Mokhtari AK, Alser O, Tsiligkaridis T, et al. Development of a field artificial-intelligence triage tool: Confidence in the prediction of shock, transfusion, and definitive surgical therapy in patients with truncal gunshot wounds. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021; 90(6): 1054-60.
19. El Hechi MW, Maurer LR, Levine J, Zhuo D, et al. Validation of the artificial intelligence–based predictive optimal trees in emergency surgery risk (POTTER) calculator in emergency-general-surgery and emergency-laparotomy patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2021; 232(6): 912-9.
20. Gorczyca MT, Toscano NC, Cheng JD. The trauma-severity-model: An ensemble machine-learning approach to risk-prediction. Comput Biol Med. 2019; 108: 9-19.
21. Shahi N, Shahi AK, Phillips R, Shirek G, et al. Decision-making in pediatric-blunt-solid-organ-injury: A deep-learning approach to predict massive-transfusion, need-for-operative-management, and mortality-risk. J Pediatr Surg. 2021; 56(2): 379-84.
22. He W, Fu X, Chen S. Advancing polytrauma care: developing and validating machine learning models for early mortality prediction. J Transl Med. 2023; 21: 664. doi: 10.1186/s12967-023-04487-8.
23. Paydar S, Parva E, Ghahramani Z, Pourahmad S, et al. Do clinical and paraclinical findings have the power to predict critical conditions of injured patients after traumatic injury resuscitation? Using data-mining artificial intelligence. Chin J Traumatol. 2021; 24(1): 48-52.
24. Maurer LR, Bertsimas D, Bouardi HT, El Hechi M, et al. Trauma-outcome-predictor: An artificial-intelligence-interactive smartphone-tool to predict outcomes in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021; 91(1): 93-9.
25. McCall HC, Richardson CG, Helgadottir FD, Chen FS. Evaluating a web-based social anxiety intervention: A randomized controlled trial among university students. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20: e91. doi: 10.2196/ jmir.8630.
26. Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, Prgomet M, et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: A time and motion study in four specialties. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 165: 753-60. doi: 10.7326/M16-0961.
27. Cheng C-Y, Chiu I-M, Hsu M-Y, Pan H-Y, et al. Deep learning-assisted detection of abdominal free fluid in Morison’s pouch during focused assessment with sonography in trauma. Front Med. 2021; 8: 707437.
28. Rashidi HH, Sen S, Palmieri TL, Blackmon T, et al. Early recognition of burn-and-trauma-related acute-kidney-injury: A pilot-comparison-of-machine-learning-techniques. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10(1): 205-6.
29. Stonko DP, Dennis BM, Betzold RD, Peetz AB, Gunter OL, Guillamondegui OD. Artificial intelligence can predict daily trauma volume and average acuity. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018; 85(2): 393-7.
30. Corban J, Lorange JP, Laverdiere C, Khoury J, et al. Artificial intelligence in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(7): 23259671211014206. doi: 10.1177/23259671211014206.
31. Staziaki PV, Wu D, Rayan JC, Santo IDO, et al. Machine learning combining CT-findings and clinical-parameters improves prediction of length-of-stay and ICU-admission in torso-trauma. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(7): 5434-41.
32. Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance National/International Network Group (WARNING) Collaborators. Ten golden rules for optimal antibiotic use in hospital settings: the WARNING call to action. World J Emerg Surg. 2023; 18: 50. doi: 10.1186/s13017-023-00518-3.
33. Lisacek-Kiosoglous AB, Powling AS, Fontalis A, Gabr A, et al. Artificial intelligence in orthopaedic surgery. Bone Joint Res. 2023; 12(7): 447-54. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.127.BJR-2023-0111.R1.
34. Zhang X, Zhang D, Zhang X, Zhang X. Artificial intelligence applications in the diagnosis and treatment of bacterial infections. Front Microbiol. 2024; 15: 1449844. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1449844.
35. Nourelahi M, Dadboud F, Khalili H, Niakan A, Parsaei H. A machine-learning model for predicting favorable outcome in severe-traumatic-brain-injury patients after six-month follow-up. Acute Crit Care. 2022; 37: 45-52.
36. Rau CS, Wu SC, Chuang JF, Huang CY, Liu HT, Chien PC, et al. Machine-learning models of survival prediction in trauma patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019; 8(6): 799. doi: 10.3390/jcm8060799.
37. Kurmis AP, Ianunzio JR. Artificial intelligence in orthopedic surgery: Evolution, current state, and future directions. Arthroplasty. 2022; 4(1): 9. doi: 10.1186/s42836-022-00112-z.
38. El Hechi M, Gebran A, Bouardi HT, Maurer LR, et al. Validation of the artificial-intelligence-based trauma-outcomes-predictor (TOP) in patients aged ≥65 years. Surgery. 2022; 171(6): 1687-94.
39. Innocenti B, Radyul Y, Bori E. The use of artificial intelligence in orthopedics: Applications and limitations of machine learning in diagnosis and prediction. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(21): 10775. doi: 10.3390/app122110775.
40. Kumar V, Patel S, Baburaj V, Vardhan A, et al. Current understanding on artificial intelligence and machine learning in orthopaedics – A scoping review. J Orthop. 2022; 34: 201-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.08.020.
41. Masters K. Artificial intelligence in medical education. Med Teacher. 2019; 41(9): 976-980.
42. Katznelson G, Gerke S. The need for health AI ethics in medical school education. AdvHealthSciEducTheoryPract. 2021; 26(4): 1447-1458.
43. Gazhva SI, Gorbatov RO, Yuryukhina MN, Teteryn AI, Yanisheva KL. 3D Technologies in Medicine. Additive Technologies. 2023; 2: 70-77. (In Russ.)
44. Park SH, Do KH, Kim S, et.al. What Should Medical Students Know About Artificial Intelligence in Medicine? Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019; 16: 16-21.
45. Koshechkin KA, Khokhlov AL. Ethical issues of artificial intelligence implementation in healthcare. Meditsinskaya etika. 2024; 1: 12-19. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24075/medet.2024.006.
46. Haydарова NTK. Konfidentsial’nost’ i zashchita dannykh s uchetom primeneniya iskusstvennogo intellekta v rabochih protsessah. Central Asian Journal of Education and Innovation. 2024; 3(5-3): 137-141. (In Russ.) doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11408148.
47. Cheng K, Guo Q, He Y, Lu Y, et al. Artificial intelligence in sports medicine: Could GPT-4 make human doctors obsolete? Ann Biomed Eng. 2023; 51(8): 1658-62. doi: 10.1007/s10439-023-03213-1.
48. Melnikov AA. Potential liability of doctors using artificial intelligence. Dal’nevostochnyy meditsinskiy zhurnal. 2024; 1: 77-80. (In Russ.) doi: 10.35177/1994-5191-2024-1-13.
49. Ghantasala GS, Dilip K, Vidyullatha P, et al. Enhanced ovarian cancer survival prediction using temporal analysis and graph neural networks. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024; 24: 299. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02665-2.
50. Gyftopoulos S, Lin D, Knoll F, Doshi AM, Rodrigues TC, Recht MP. Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal imaging: Current status and future directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 213(3): 506-13. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19. 21117.
51. Shaderkin IA. The role of artificial intelligence in telemedicine in Russia. Zhurnal telemeditsiny i elektronnogo zdravookhraneniya. 2019; 5(1): 38-40. (In Russ.) doi: 10.29188/ 2542-2413-2019-5-1-38-40.
