MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283361163 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.247

P.165 Using artificial intelligence to quantify dynamic retraction of brain tissue and the manipulation of instruments in neurosurgery

2022· article· en· W4283361163 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T Martin, G El Hage, MW Bojanowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkBrain tissueMedicineBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is no objective way to measure the amount of manipulation and retraction of neural tissue by the surgeon. Our objective is to develop metrics quantifying dynamic retraction of cerebral tissue and the manipulation of instruments during a neurosurgical intervention. Methods: We trained a convolutional neural network to analyze microscopic footage of neurosurgical procedures and thereby generate metrics evaluating the surgeon’s dynamic retraction of brain tissue and the surgeon’s manipulation of the instruments themselves. U-Net image segmentation is used to output bounding polygons around cerebral parenchyma of interest, as well as the vascular structures and cranial nerves. Results: On the validation set, our network achieves a state of the art Intersection over Union (IoU) of 70.1% (Recall = 89%) and 74.3% (Recall = 91%) for surgical tools and biological structures respectively. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to evaluate dynamic retraction and tissue handling. Conclusions: We describe a semantic segmentation model for surgical instruments and intracranial structures to evaluate dynamic retraction of soft tissue and manipulation of instruments during a surgical procedure, while accounting for movement of the operative microscope. Using the intraoperative footage, this model can potentially provide the surgeon with objective feedback.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207