System for Central Venous Catheterization Training Using Computer Vision-Based Workflow Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a system for training central venous catheterization that does not require an expert observer. We propose a training system that uses video-based workflow recognition and electromagnetic tracking to provide trainees with real-time instruction and feedback. METHODS: The system provides trainees with prompts about upcoming tasks and visual cues about workflow errors. Most tasks are recognized from a webcam video using a combination of a convolutional neural network and a recurrent neural network. We evaluated the system's ability to recognize tasks in the workflow by computing the percent of tasks that were recognized and the average signed transitional delay between the system and reviewers. We also evaluated the usability of the system using a participant questionnaire. RESULTS: The system was able to recognize 86.2% of tasks in the workflow. The average signed transitional delay was -0.7s. The average usability score on the questionnaire was 4.7 out of 5 for the system overall. The participants found the interactive task list to be the most useful component of the system with an average score of 4.8 out of 5. CONCLUSION: Overall, the participants' response to the system was positive. Participants perceived that the system would be useful for central venous catheterization training. Our system provides trainees with meaningful instruction and feedback without needing an expert observer to be present. SIGNIFICANCE: We are able to provide trainees with more opportunities to access instruction and meaningful feedback by using workflow recognition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".