SAGES consensus recommendations on surgical video data use, structure, and exploration (for research in artificial intelligence, clinical quality improvement, and surgical education)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgery generates a vast amount of data from each procedure. Particularly video data provides significant value for surgical research, clinical outcome assessment, quality control, and education. The data lifecycle is influenced by various factors, including data structure, acquisition, storage, and sharing; data use and exploration, and finally data governance, which encompasses all ethical and legal regulations associated with the data. There is a universal need among stakeholders in surgical data science to establish standardized frameworks that address all aspects of this lifecycle to ensure data quality and purpose. METHODS: Working groups were formed, among 48 representatives from academia and industry, including clinicians, computer scientists and industry representatives. These working groups focused on: Data Use, Data Structure, Data Exploration, and Data Governance. After working group and panel discussions, a modified Delphi process was conducted. RESULTS: The resulting Delphi consensus provides conceptualized and structured recommendations for each domain related to surgical video data. We identified the key stakeholders within the data lifecycle and formulated comprehensive, easily understandable, and widely applicable guidelines for data utilization. Standardization of data structure should encompass format and quality, data sources, documentation, metadata, and account for biases within the data. To foster scientific data exploration, datasets should reflect diversity and remain adaptable to future applications. Data governance must be transparent to all stakeholders, addressing legal and ethical considerations surrounding the data. CONCLUSION: This consensus presents essential recommendations around the generation of standardized and diverse surgical video databanks, accounting for multiple stakeholders involved in data generation and use throughout its lifecycle. Following the SAGES annotation framework, we lay the foundation for standardization of data use, structure, and exploration. A detailed exploration of requirements for adequate data governance will follow.
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 | 0.391 | 0.461 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.013 |
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".