Development of a code-free machine learning model for the classification of cataract surgery phases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the performance of automated machine learning (AutoML) in classifying cataract surgery phases from surgical videos. Two ophthalmology trainees without coding experience designed a deep learning model in Google Cloud AutoML Video Classification for the classification of 10 different cataract surgery phases. We used two open-access publicly available datasets (total of 122 surgeries) for model training, validation and testing. External validation was performed on 10 surgeries issued from another dataset. The AutoML model demonstrated excellent discriminating performance, even outperforming bespoke deep learning models handcrafter by experts. The area under the precision-recall curve was 0.855. At the 0.5 confidence threshold cut-off, the overall performance metrics were as follows: sensitivity (81.0%), recall (77.1%), accuracy (96.0%) and F1 score (0.79). The per-segment metrics varied across the surgical phases: precision 66.7-100%, recall 46.2-100% and specificity 94.1-100%. Hydrodissection and phacoemulsification were the most accurately predicted phases (100 and 92.31% correct predictions, respectively). During external validation, the average precision was 54.2% (0.00-90.0%), the recall was 61.1% (0.00-100%) and specificity was 96.2% (91.0-99.0%). In conclusion, a code-free AutoML model can accurately classify cataract surgery phases from videos with an accuracy comparable or better than models developed by experts.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it