Identifying tool-tissue interactions to distinguish steps in simulated open inguinal hernia repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As medical education adopts a competency-based training approach, assessment of skills and timely provision of formative feedback is required. Provision of such assessment and feedback places a substantial time burden on surgeons. To reduce this time burden, we look to develop a computer-assisted training platform to provide both instruction and feedback to residents learning open Inguinal Hernia Repairs (IHR). To provide feedback on residents’ technical skills, we must first find a method of workflow recognition of the IHR. We thus aim to recognize and distinguish between workflow steps of an open IHR based on the presence and frequencies of different tool-tissue interactions occurring during each step. Based on ground truth tissue segmentations and tool bounding boxes, we identify the visible tissues within a bounding box. This provides an estimation of which tissues a tool is interacting with. The presence and frequencies of the interactions during each step are compared to determine whether this information can be used to distinguish between steps. Based on the ground truth tool-tissue interactions, the presence and frequencies of interactions during each step in the IHR show clear, distinguishable patterns. In conclusion, due to the distinct differences in the presence and frequencies of the tool-tissue interactions between steps, this offers a viable method of step recognition of an open IHR performed on a phantom.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".