Prediction of Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE) metrics during vesico-urethral anastomosis using electroencephalography, eye-tracking, and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Residents learn the vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA), a key step in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), early in their training. VUA assessment and training significantly impact patient outcomes and have high educational value. This study aimed to develop objective prediction models for the Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE) metrics using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye-tracking data. Data were recorded from 23 participants performing robot-assisted VUA (henceforth ‘anastomosis’) on plastic models and animal tissue using the da Vinci surgical robot. EEG and eye-tracking features were extracted, and participants’ anastomosis subtask performance was assessed by three raters using the RACE tool and operative videos. Random forest regression (RFR) and gradient boosting regression (GBR) models were developed to predict RACE scores using extracted features, while linear mixed models (LMM) identified associations between features and RACE scores. Overall performance scores significantly differed among inexperienced, competent, and experienced skill levels (P value < 0.0001). For plastic anastomoses, R2 values for predicting unseen test scores were: needle positioning (0.79), needle entry (0.74), needle driving and tissue trauma (0.80), suture placement (0.75), and tissue approximation (0.70). For tissue anastomoses, the values were 0.62, 0.76, 0.65, 0.68, and 0.62, respectively. The models could enhance RARP anastomosis training by offering objective performance feedback to trainees.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".