MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307644840 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2022.100235

Use of Machine Learning to Assess Cataract Surgery Skill Level With Tool Detection

2022· article· en· W4307644840 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Ruzicki, Matthew Holden, Stephanie Cheon, Tamás Ungi, Rylan Egan, Christine Law

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicCataract surgeryMedicineArtificial intelligenceConfidence intervalSupport vector machineMachine learningMedical physicsComputer scienceSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop a method for objective analysis of the reproducible steps in routine cataract surgery. Design: Prospective study; machine learning. Participants: Deidentified faculty and trainee surgical videos. Methods: Consecutive cataract surgeries performed by a faculty or trainee surgeon in an ophthalmology residency program over 6 months were collected and labeled according to degrees of difficulty. An existing image classification network, ResNet 152, was fine-tuned for tool detection in cataract surgery to allow for automatic identification of each unique surgical instrument. Individual microscope video frame windows were subsequently encoded as a vector. The relation between vector encodings and perceived skill using k-fold user-out cross-validation was examined. Algorithms were evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the classification accuracy. Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy of tool detection and skill assessment. Results: In total, 391 consecutive cataract procedures with 209 routine cases were used. Our model achieved an AUC ranging from 0.933 to 0.998 for tool detection. For skill classification, AUC was 0.550 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.547-0.553) with an accuracy of 54.3% (95% CI, 53.9%-54.7%) for a single snippet, AUC was 0.570 (0.565-0.575) with an accuracy of 57.8% (56.8%-58.7%) for a single surgery, and AUC was 0.692 (0.659-0.758) with an accuracy of 63.3% (56.8%-69.8%) for a single user given all their trials. Conclusions: Our research shows that machine learning can accurately and independently identify distinct cataract surgery tools in videos, which is crucial for comparing the use of the tool in a step. However, it is more challenging for machine learning to accurately differentiate overall and specific step skill to assess the level of training or expertise. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207