Analysis of Energy-Based Metrics for Laparoscopic Skills Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The complexity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires that trainees practice MIS skills in numerous training sessions. The goal of these training sessions is to learn how to move the instruments smoothly without damaging the surrounding tissue and achieving operative tasks with accuracy. In order to enhance the efficiency of these training sessions, the proficiency of the trainees should be assessed using an objective assessment method. Several performance metrics have been proposed and analyzed for MIS tasks. The differentiation of various levels of expertise is limited without the presence of an external evaluator. METHODS: In this study, novel objective performance metrics are proposed based on mechanical energy expenditure and work. The three components of these metrics are potential energy, kinetic energy, and work. These components are optimally combined through both one-step and two-step methods. Evaluation of these metrics is accomplished for suturing and knot-tying tasks based on the performance of 30 subjects across four levels of experience. RESULTS: The results of this study show that the one-step combined metric provides 47 and 60 accuracy in determining the level of expertise of subjects for the suturing and knot-tying tasks, respectively. The two-step combined metric provided 67 accuracy for both of the tasks studied. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that energy expenditure is a useful metric for developing objective and efficient assessment methods. SIGNIFICANCE: These metrics can be used to evaluate and determine the proficiency levels of trainees, provide feedback and, consequently, enhance surgical simulators.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".