Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Sep 1;160(9):993-1003.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2025.2564.

Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Human Instruction and Surgical Simulation Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Bianca Giglio  1 , Abdulmajeed Albeloushi  1   2 , Ahmad Kh Alhaj  1   2 , Mohamed Alhantoobi  1   3 , Rothaina Saeedi  1   2 , Vanja Davidovic  1 , Abicumaran Uthamacumaran  1 , Recai Yilmaz  1   4 , Jason Lapointe  1   5 , Neevya Balasubramaniam  1   6 , Trisha Tee  1   7 , Ali M Fazlollahi  1   6 , José A Correa  8 , Rolando F Del Maestro  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Human Instruction and Surgical Simulation Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Bianca Giglio et al. JAMA Surg. .

Abstract

Importance: How the Intelligent Continuous Expertise Monitoring System, an artificial intelligence tutoring system, might be best optimized for surgical training is unknown.

Objective: To determine the effects of artificial intelligence-augmented personalized expert instruction vs intelligent tutoring alone on surgical performance, skill transfer, and affective-cognitive responses.

Design, setting, and participants: This single-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted among a volunteer sample of medical students in preparatory, first, or second year without prior use of a virtual reality surgical simulator (NeuroVR) at the McGill Neurosurgical Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Learning Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Cross-sectional data were collected from March to September 2024, and per-protocol data analysis was conducted in March 2025.

Intervention: During simulated surgical procedures, trainees received 1 of 3 feedback methods. Group 1 received only intelligent tutor instruction (control). The 2 intervention arms included group 2, which received expert feedback in identical words to the intelligent tutor, and group 3, which received artificial intelligence data-informed personalized expert feedback.

Main outcomes and measures: The coprimary outcomes included change in overall surgical performance across practice resections and skill transfer to a complex realistic scenario, measured by artificial intelligence-calculated composite expertise score (range, -1.00 [novice] to 1.00 [expert]). Secondary outcomes included emotional and cognitive demands, measured via questionnaires.

Results: In this randomized clinical trial, the final analysis included 87 medical students (46 [53%] women; mean [SD] age, 22.7 [4.0] years), with 30, 29, and 28 participants in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 3 achieved significantly higher scores than group 1 across several trials, including trial 5 (mean difference, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.43; P = .01) and the realistic task (mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.34; P = .02). Group 3 also achieved significantly better scores than the other 2 groups in certain metrics, such as bleeding and injury risk. Emotions and cognitive load demonstrated significant differences.

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, personalized expert instruction resulted in enhanced surgical performance and skill transfer compared with intelligent tutor instruction, highlighting the importance of human input and participation in artificial intelligence-based surgical training.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06273579.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Yilmaz reported a pending patent for methods and systems for continuous monitoring of task performance under the international patent application number WO2022077109A1. Ms Davidovic, Mr Uthamacumaran, and Ms Tee reported receiving Canada Graduate Scholarships—Master's program during the conduct of the study. Dr Del Maestro reported that the laboratory received the Brain Tumour Research Grant from the Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada, the Medical Education Research Grant from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Mitacs Accelerate Grant, and funding from the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital and the Franco Di Giovanni Foundation; and provision of a prototype of the NeuroVR simulator used in this study to the laboratory from the National Research Council of Canada. No other disclosures were reported.

Comment on

References

    1. Rogers SO Jr, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006;140(1):25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.01.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fabri PJ, Zayas-Castro JL. Human error, not communication and systems, underlies surgical complications. Surgery. 2008;144(4):557-563. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.06.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fecso AB, Szasz P, Kerezov G, Grantcharov TP. The effect of technical performance on patient outcomes in surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):492-501. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001959 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Madani A, Vassiliou MC, Watanabe Y, et al. What are the principles that guide behaviors in the operating room?: creating a framework to define and measure performance. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):255-267. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001962 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haluck RS, Krummel TM. Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. Arch Surg. 2000;135(7):786-792. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.135.7.786 - DOI - PubMed

Associated data