Evaluating quality and completeness of gastrectomy for gastric cancer: review of surgical videos from the public domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: YouTube® has provided a forum to share surgical videos in the public domain which may be used for education. The quality of surgery and accompanying educational material is unknown. YouTube® videos of gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (D2-LND) for gastric cancer were evaluated for quality and completeness. Methods: YouTube® was searched using the terms “D2 lymphadenectomy” and “Gastric Cancer” for open and laparoscopic videos. The Korean Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgical Society (KLASS) outlined 22 steps that define quality and completeness of D2-LND. These guidelines were used to score D2-LND for each video. Four physician reviewers independently scored each surgical video. Scores were compared using Student’s t-test. Results: Ten laparoscopic and 10 open surgery videos were assessed. Each video was scored for quality and completeness and assigned a score out of 22. Mean score for open D2-LND was 15 (95% CI: 12.54–17.46). Mean score for laparoscopic D2-LND was 15.4 (95% CI: 14.34–16.46; P=0.77). The most consistently performed steps were the dissection of lymph node stations 1, 3, 4 and 5. The most commonly omitted steps were the dissection of lymph node station 6: exposure and identification of the lowest anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal vein; removal of the prepancreatic soft tissues above the lowest anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal vein; removal of the prepancreatic soft tissues above the level of the bifurcation of the anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal vein and right gastroepiploic vein. Conclusions: There is a wide range of quality and completeness of D2-LND videos. On average, D2-LND videos are only two-thirds complete.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".