Parallelism in Autonomous Robotic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robots can perform multiple tasks in parallel. This work is about leveraging this capability in automating multilateral surgical subtasks. In particular, we explore, in a simulation study, the benefits of considering this parallelism capability in developing execution models for autonomous robotic surgery. We apply our work to two surgical subtask categories: (i) coupled-motion subtasks, where multiple robot arms share the same resources to perform the subtask, and (ii) decoupled-motion subtasks, where each robot arm executes its part of the task independently from the others. We propose and develop parallel execution models for the surgical debridement subtask, a representative of the first category, and the multi-throw suturing subtask, a representative of the second one. Comparing these parallel execution models to the state-of-the-art ones shows significant reductions in the subtasks completion time by at least 40%. In 20 trials, our results show that our proposed model for the surgical debridement subtask, that uses hierarchical concurrent state machines, provides a parallel execution framework that is efficient while greatly reducing collisions between the arms compared to a naive parallel execution model without coordination. We also show how applying parallelism can lead to execution models that go beyond the normal practice of human surgeons. We finally propose the notion of “automation for surgical manual execution” where we argue that autonomous robotic surgery research can be used as a tool for surgeons to discover novel manual execution models that can significantly improve their surgical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".