Investigation of gaze patterns in multi view laparoscopic surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) is a modern surgical technique whereby the surgery is performed through an incision with tools and camera as opposed to conventional open surgery. This promises minimal recovery times and less hemorrhaging. Multi view LS is the latest development in the field, where the system uses multiple cameras to give the surgeon more information about the surgical site, potentially making the surgery easier. In this publication, we study the gaze patterns of a high performing subject in a multi-view LS environment and compare it with that of a novice to detect the differences between the gaze behavior. This was done by conducting a user study with 20 university students with varying levels of expertise in Multi-view LS. The subjects performed an laparoscopic task in simulation with three cameras (front/top/side). The subjects were then separated as high and low performers depending on the performance times and their data was analyzed. Our results show statistically significant differences between the two behaviors. This opens up new areas from of training novices to Multi-view LS to making smart displays that guide your shows the optimum view depending on the situation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it