Motion Smoothness-Based Assessment of Surgical Expertise: The Importance of Selecting Proper Metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The smooth movement of hand/surgical instruments is considered an indicator of skilled, coordinated surgical performance. Jerky surgical instrument movements or hand tremors can cause unwanted damages to the surgical site. Different methods have been used in previous studies for assessing motion smoothness, causing conflicting results regarding the comparison among surgical skill levels. We recruited four attending surgeons, five surgical residents, and nine novices. The participants conducted three simulated laparoscopic tasks, including peg transfer, bimanual peg transfer, and rubber band translocation. Tooltip motion smoothness was computed using the mean tooltip motion jerk, logarithmic dimensionless tooltip motion jerk, and 95% tooltip motion frequency (originally proposed in this study) to evaluate their capability of surgical skill level differentiation. The results revealed that logarithmic dimensionless motion jerk and 95% motion frequency were capable of distinguishing skill levels, indicated by smoother tooltip movements observed in high compared to low skill levels. Contrarily, mean motion jerk was not able to distinguish the skill levels. Additionally, 95% motion frequency was less affected by the measurement noise since it did not require the calculation of motion jerk, and 95% motion frequency and logarithmic dimensionless motion jerk yielded a better motion smoothness assessment outcome in distinguishing skill levels than mean motion jerk.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".