Surgical skill level classification model development using EEG and eye-gaze data and machine learning algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop machine learning classification models using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye-gaze features to predict the level of surgical expertise in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). EEG and eye-gaze data were recorded from 11 participants who performed cystectomy, hysterectomy, and nephrectomy using the da Vinci robot. Skill level was evaluated by an expert RAS surgeon using the modified Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) tool, and data from three subtasks were extracted to classify skill levels using three classification models-multinomial logistic regression (MLR), random forest (RF), and gradient boosting (GB). The GB algorithm was used with a combination of EEG and eye-gaze data to classify skill levels, and differences between the models were tested using two-sample t tests. The GB model using EEG features showed the best performance for blunt dissection (83% accuracy), retraction (85% accuracy), and burn dissection (81% accuracy). The combination of EEG and eye-gaze features using the GB algorithm improved the accuracy of skill level classification to 88% for blunt dissection, 93% for retraction, and 86% for burn dissection. The implementation of objective skill classification models in clinical settings may enhance the RAS surgical training process by providing objective feedback about performance to surgeons and their teachers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".