Quantitative Methodology of Evaluating Surgeon Performance in Laparoscopic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative performance and skill assessments are critical for evaluating the progress of surgical residents and the efficacy of different training programs. Current evaluation methods are subjective and potentially unreliable, so there is a need for objective methods to evaluate surgical performance. We identify a feasible method to measure kinematic data in the live operating room setting and to assess the repeatability of an analysis method based on a hierarchical decomposition of surgical tasks. We used an optoelectronic motion analysis system to acquire postural data and tool tip trajectories of one expert surgeon over a period of four months. To assess repeatability of performance measures, we created a hierarchical decomposition diagram describing the procedure in terms of surgical tasks, tool sequences and fundamental tool actions. From the kinematic data, we extracted characteristic measures of individual tool actions and compared these measured distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. The comparisons of distributions show consistent performance over time by a trained surgeon and little effect from patient variability, and so are likely reliable measures of performance. An expanded set of reliable kinematic measures will form the basis for quantifying surgical skill and should be useful in validating surgical simulations for use in training, certifying surgeons and designing and evaluating new surgical tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".