Mengintegrasikan kecerdasan buatan ke dalam pengambilan keputusan intraoperatif: Era baru dalam bedah presisi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56922/quilt.v6i2.2279
Aktivitas Fisik Gaya Hidup Sedentary Mahasiswa Pencegahan Sindrom Metabolik
Abstract
Background: Metabolic syndrome is increasingly common among young people, including college students, as a result of modern lifestyle changes. Shifts in eating behavior toward high-fat and high-sugar foods, low physical activity, and high academic pressure lead to metabolic imbalance.
Purpose: To analyze lifestyle factors contributing to the increased risk of metabolic syndrome among college students.
Method: This study used a descriptive qualitative approach, utilizing in-depth interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) with students from various study programs. Data were analyzed thematically, emphasizing health behavior patterns, dietary habits, physical activity, and students' perceptions of metabolic syndrome prevention efforts.
Results: This study identified three main factors that interact and influence the risk of metabolic syndrome: an unbalanced lifestyle characterized by a high-fat diet, lack of sleep, and academic stress; low physical activity and a predominantly sedentary lifestyle that reduce metabolic capacity and blood vessel function; and low preventive awareness and minimal campus institutional support that undermine the implementation of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
Conclusion: Preventing metabolic syndrome in college students requires a holistic approach based on a healthy campus (Healthy Campus Framework) that includes the integration of health education, increased physical activity, and strengthening institutional policies that support sustainable healthy lifestyle behaviors.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Intraoperative Decision-Making; Precision Surgery.
Pendahuluan: Sindrom metabolik semakin umum di kalangan anak muda termasuk mahasiswa, sebagai akibat dari perubahan gaya hidup modern. Pergeseran perilaku makan ke arah makanan tinggi lemak dan tinggi gula, aktivitas fisik yang rendah, dan tekanan akademik yang tinggi menyebabkan ketidakseimbangan metabolik.
Tujuan: Untuk menganalisis faktor-faktor gaya hidup yang berkontribusi terhadap peningkatan risiko sindrom metabolik di kalangan mahasiswa.
Metode: Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif, memanfaatkan wawancara mendalam, dan diskusi kelompok terfokus (FGD) dengan mahasiswa dari berbagai program studi. Data dianalisis secara tematik, menekankan pola perilaku kesehatan, kebiasaan makan, aktivitas fisik, dan persepsi mahasiswa terhadap upaya pencegahan sindrom metabolik.
Hasil: Penelitian ini mengidentifikasi tiga faktor utama yang berinteraksi dan memengaruhi risiko sindrom metabolik yaitu gaya hidup tidak seimbang yang ditandai dengan pola makan tinggi lemak, kurang tidur, dan stres akademik; aktivitas fisik yang rendah dan gaya hidup yang didominasi sedenter yang menurunkan kapasitas metabolisme dan fungsi pembuluh darah; dan kesadaran preventif yang rendah dan minimnya dukungan institusi kampus yang melemahkan penerapan perilaku hidup sehat.
Simpulan: Pencegahan sindrom metabolik pada mahasiswa memerlukan pendekatan holistik berbasis kampus sehat (Healthy Campus Framework) yang mencakup integrasi edukasi kesehatan, peningkatan aktivitas fisik, dan penguatan kebijakan institusi yang mendukung perilaku hidup sehat berkelanjutan.
Kata Kunci: Aktivitas Fisik; Gaya Hidup Sedentary; Mahasiswa; Pencegahan; Sindrom Metabolik.
Downloads
References
Barkun, J. S., Aronson, J. K., Feldman, L. S., Maddern, G. J., & Strasberg, S. M. (2009). Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. The Lancet, 374(9695), 1089–1096.
Bini, S. A. (2018). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and orthopaedic surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 100(1), 1–2.
Bodenstedt, S., Wagner, M., Müller-Stich, B. P., & Speidel, S. (2018). Technical aspects of artificial intelligence in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 32, 1–11.
Cabitza, F., Rasoini, R., & Gensini, G. F. (2017). Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA, 318(6), 517–518.
Chen, I. Y., Joshi, S., Ghassemi, M., & Ranganath, R. (2021). Probabilistic machine learning for healthcare. Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science, 4, 1–24.
Darcy, A. M., Louie, A. K., & Roberts, L. W. (2016). Machine learning and the profession of medicine. JAMA, 315(6), 551–552.
Deo, R. C. (2015). Machine learning in medicine. Circulation, 132(20), 1920–1930.
Esteva, A., Robicquet, A., Ramsundar, B., Kuleshov, V., DePristo, M., Chou, K., & Dean, J. (2019). A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 24–29.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A’Court, C., & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367.
Hashimoto, D. A., Rosman, G., Rus, D., & Meireles, O. R. (2018). Artificial intelligence in surgery: Promises and perils. Annals of Surgery, 268(1), 70–76.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., & Chandler, J. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley.
Holzinger, A., Langs, G., Denk, H., Zatloukal, K., & Müller, H. (2019). Causability and explainable AI. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 94, 1–14.
Hyland, S. L., Faltys, M., Hüser, M., Lyu, X., Gumbsch, T., Esteban, C., & Rätsch, G. (2020). Early prediction of circulatory failure. Nature Medicine, 26(3), 364–373.
Kassahun, Y., Yu, B., Tibebu, A. T., Stoyanov, D., Giannarou, S., Metzen, J. H., & Vander Poorten, E. (2020). Surgical robotics beyond enhanced dexterity instrumentation: A survey of machine learning techniques and their role in intelligent and autonomous surgical actions. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 15(4), 553–568.
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D. (2019). Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Medicine, 17, 195.
Kenig, N., Montón, E., & Muntaner, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in surgery: A systematic review of use and validation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(23), 7108.
Komorowski, M., Celi, L. A., Badawi, O., Gordon, A. C., & Faisal, A. A. (2018). The artificial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies. Nature Medicine, 24(11), 1716–1720.
Krittanawong, C., Johnson, K. W., Rosenson, R. S., Wang, Z., Aydar, M., Baber, U., & Tang, W. H. W. (2019). Deep learning for cardiovascular medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 73(25), 3316–3329.
Lee, C. K., Hofer, I., Gabel, E., Baldi, P., & Cannesson, M. (2022). Development and validation of a deep neural network model. Anesthesiology, 136(4), 641–654.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., & Tetzlaff, J. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Loftus, T. J., Altieri, M. S., Tignanelli, C. J., Brakenridge, S. C., Croft, C. A., Smith, R. S., & Mohr, A. M. (2023). Artificial intelligence–enabled decision support in surgery. Annals of Surgery, 278(1), 51–58.
London, A. J. (2019). Artificial intelligence and black-box medical decisions. Hastings Center Report, 49(1), 15–21.
Maier-Hein, L., Eisenmann, M., & Sarikaya, D., (2017). Surgical data science for next-generation interventions. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 1, 691–696.
Mascagni, P., Padoy, N., & Collins, J. W. (2022). Artificial intelligence for surgical safety: Automatic assessment of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Annals of Surgery, 275(5), e678–e686.
McCulloch, P., Altman, D. G., Campbell, W. B., Flum, D. R., Glasziou, P., Marshall, J. C., & Nicholl, J. (2009). No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet, 374(9695), 1105–1112.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535.
Morris, M. X., Fiocco, D., Caneva, T., Mascagni, P., & Padoy, N. (2024). Current and future applications of artificial intelligence in surgery. Frontiers in Surgery, 11, 1393898.
Ng, Z. Y., Yeong, W. Y., & Lim, K. H. (2022). Artificial intelligence in surgery: A review of current applications. Frontiers in Medicine, 9, 830030.
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage population health. Science, 366(6464), 447–453.
Padoy, N. (2019). Machine and deep learning for workflow recognition during surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 14(9), 1437–1447.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., & Bossuyt, P. M., (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Rajkomar, A., Dean, J., & Kohane, I. (2019). Machine learning in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(14), 1347–1358.
Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25, 44–56.
Twinanda, A. P., Shehata, S., Mutter, D., Marescaux, J., De Mathelin, M., & Padoy, N. (2016). EndoNet: A deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 36(1), 86–97.
Varghese, C., Harrison, E. M., & O’Grady, G. (2024). Artificial intelligence in surgery. Nature Medicine, 30, 1257–1268.
Wijnberge, M., Geerts, B. F., Hol, L., Lemmers, N., Mulder, M. P., Berge, P., & Veelo, D. P. (2020). Effect of a machine learning–derived early warning system for intraoperative hypotension on depth and duration of hypotension. JAMA, 323(11), 1052–1060.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Asdar Asdar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
