Performance evaluation in cataract surgery with an ensemble of 2D–3D convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important part of surgical training in ophthalmology is understanding how to proficiently perform cataract surgery. Operating skill in cataract surgery is typically assessed by real-time or video-based expert review using a rating scale. This is time-consuming, subjective and labour-intensive. A typical trainee graduates with over 100 complete surgeries, each of which requires review by the surgical educators. Due to the consistently repetitive nature of this task, it lends itself well to machine learning-based evaluation. Recent studies utilize deep learning models trained on tool motion trajectories obtained using additional equipment or robotic systems. However, the process of tool recognition by extracting frames from the videos to perform phase recognition followed by skill assessment is exhaustive. This project proposes a deep learning model for skill evaluation using raw surgery videos that is cost-effective and end-to-end trainable. An advanced ensemble of convolutional neural network models is leveraged to model technical skills in cataract surgeries and is evaluated using a large dataset comprising almost 200 surgical trials. The highest accuracy of 0.8494 is observed on the phacoemulsification step data. Our model yielded an average accuracy of 0.8200 and an average AUC score of 0.8800 for all four phase datasets of cataract surgery proving its robustness against different data. The proposed ensemble model with 2D and 3D convolutional neural networks demonstrated a promising result without using tool motion trajectories to evaluate surgery expertise.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".