You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Clinics and Practice
  • Reply
  • Open Access

27 October 2025

Reply to Haq et al. Comment on “Leivaditis et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Surgery: Transforming Outcomes and Shaping the Future. Clin. Pract. 2025, 15, 17”

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, WestpfalzKlinikum, 67655 Kaiserslautern, Germany
2
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
3
Department of Thoracic Surgery and Thoracic Endoscopy, Ruhrlandklinik, West German Lung Center, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany
4
Department of General Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
We thank Haq and Khan for their thoughtful commentary [1] on our review of artificial intelligence (AI) in cardiac surgery [2]. We fully agree that advancing AI integration in this field requires not only technological innovation but also robust strategies for data quality, workflow integration, ethical governance, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

1. Data Quality and Generalizability

As emphasized, the effectiveness of AI models is contingent on the diversity and representativeness of their training datasets. Our review highlighted similar concerns and supports the authors’ call for prospective, multicenter validation efforts. Frameworks such as DECIDE-AI provide timely guidance for ensuring that models meet standards of transparency and generalizability [3].

2. Clinical Integration and Workflow Challenges

Resistance to adopting AI often stems from usability and interoperability issues within existing clinical workflows. We concur that early involvement of clinicians, user-centered design, and iterative feedback loops are pivotal to achieving meaningful and sustainable implementation of AI-driven decision-support systems [4].

3. Ethical Accountability and Algorithmic Bias

The concerns raised about accountability and algorithmic bias align with our conclusions that AI must complement—not replace—human judgment. Future research should prioritize explainable AI, equitable data representation, and strong medico-legal frameworks to build trust in high-stakes environments such as cardiac surgery [5].

4. Interdisciplinary Collaboration

We echo the recommendation to strengthen collaboration among engineers, clinicians, ethicists, regulators, and patient advocates. Innovative tools, including virtual and augmented reality, exemplify the potential of interdisciplinary approaches to enhance preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance [6].
In summary, the dialog initiated by Haq and Khan underscores the importance of continuous discourse on equitable, explainable, and patient-centered AI. Progress in these domains will be key to realizing AI’s full promise in transforming cardiac surgical care.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Haq, H.U.; Khan, M.A.H. Comment on Leivaditis et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Surgery: Transforming Outcomes and Shaping the Future. Clin. Pract. 2025, 15, 17. Clin. Pract. 2025, 15, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Leivaditis, V.; Beltsios, E.; Papatriantafyllou, A.; Grapatsas, K.; Mulita, F.; Kontodimopoulos, N.; Baikoussis, N.G.; Tchabashvili, L.; Tasios, K.; Maroulis, I.; et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Surgery: Transforming Outcomes and Shaping the Future. Clin. Pract. 2025, 15, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  3. Vasey, B.; Nagendran, M.; Campbell, B.; Clifton, D.A.; Collins, G.S.; Denaxas, S.; Denniston, A.K.; Faes, L.; Geerts, B.; Ibrahim, M.; et al. Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. BMJ 2022, 377, e070904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  4. Leivaditis, V.; Maniatopoulos, A.A.; Lausberg, H.; Mulita, F.; Papatriantafyllou, A.; Liolis, E.; Beltsios, E.; Adamou, A.; Kontodimopoulos, N.; Dahm, M. Artificial Intelligence in Thoracic Surgery: A Review Bridging Innovation and Clinical Practice for the Next Generation of Surgical Care. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  5. Rasheed, K.; Qayyum, A.; Ghaly, M.; Al-Fuqaha, A.; Razi, A.; Qadir, J. Explainable, trustworthy, and ethical machine learning for healthcare: A survey. Comput. Biol. Med. 2022, 149, 106043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rad, A.A.; Vardanyan, R.; Lopuszko, A.; Alt, C.; Stoffels, I.; Schmack, B.; Ruhparwar, A.; Zhigalov, K.; Zubarevich, A.; Weymann, A. Virtual and Augmented Reality in Cardiac Surgery. Braz. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022, 37, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.