Artificial Intelligence for Intraoperative Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models that can identify safe and dangerous zones of dissection, and anatomical landmarks during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Many adverse events during surgery occur due to errors in visual perception and judgment leading to misinterpretation of anatomy. Deep learning, a subfield of AI, can potentially be used to provide real-time guidance intraoperatively. METHODS: Deep learning models were developed and trained to identify safe (Go) and dangerous (No-Go) zones of dissection, liver, gallbladder, and hepatocystic triangle during LC. Annotations were performed by 4 high-volume surgeons. AI predictions were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation against annotations by expert surgeons. Primary outcomes were intersection- over-union (IOU) and F1 score (validated spatial correlation indices), and secondary outcomes were pixel-wise accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, ± standard deviation. RESULTS: AI models were trained on 2627 random frames from 290 LC videos, procured from 37 countries, 136 institutions, and 153 surgeons. Mean IOU, F1 score, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for the AI to identify Go zones were 0.53 (±0.24), 0.70 (±0.28), 0.94 (±0.05), 0.69 (±0.20). and 0.94 (±0.03), respectively. For No-Go zones, these metrics were 0.71 (±0.29), 0.83 (±0.31), 0.95 (±0.06), 0.80 (±0.21), and 0.98 (±0.05), respectively. Mean IOU for identification of the liver, gallbladder, and hepatocystic triangle were: 0.86 (±0.12), 0.72 (±0.19), and 0.65 (±0.22), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AI can be used to identify anatomy within the surgical field. This technology may eventually be used to provide real-time guidance and minimize the risk of adverse events.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".