Developing Surgical Skill Level Classification Model Using Visual Metrics and a Gradient Boosting Algorithm
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
Objective: Assessment of surgical skills is crucial for improving training standards and ensuring the quality of primary care. This study aimed to develop a gradient-boosting classification model to classify surgical expertise into inexperienced, competent, and experienced levels in robot-assisted surgery (RAS) using visual metrics. Methods: Eye gaze data were recorded from 11 participants performing 4 subtasks; blunt dissection, retraction, cold dissection, and hot dissection using live pigs and the da Vinci robot. Eye gaze data were used to extract the visual metrics. One expert RAS surgeon evaluated each participant’s performance and expertise level using the modified Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) assessment tool. The extracted visual metrics were used to classify surgical skill levels and to evaluate individual GEARS metrics. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences for each feature across skill levels. Results: Classification accuracies for blunt dissection, retraction, cold dissection, and burn dissection were 95%, 96%, 96%, and 96%, respectively. The time to complete only the retraction was significantly different among the 3 skill levels ( P value = 0.04). Performance was significantly different for 3 categories of surgical skill level for all subtasks ( P values < 0.01). The extracted visual metrics were strongly associated with GEARS metrics (R 2 > 0.7 for GEARS metrics evaluation models). Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms trained by visual metrics of RAS surgeons can classify surgical skill levels and evaluate GEARS measures. The time to complete a surgical subtask may not be considered a stand-alone factor for skill level assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it