Classification of subtask types and skill levels in robot-assisted surgery using EEG, eye-tracking, and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Objective and standardized evaluation of surgical skills in robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds critical importance for both surgical education and patient safety. This study introduces machine learning (ML) techniques using features derived from electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye-tracking data to identify surgical subtasks and classify skill levels. METHOD: The efficacy of this approach was assessed using a comprehensive dataset encompassing nine distinct classes, each representing a unique combination of three surgical subtasks executed by surgeons while performing operations on pigs. Four ML models, logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) were used for multi-class classification. To develop the models, 20% of data samples were randomly allocated to a test set, with the remaining 80% used for training and validation. Hyperparameters were optimized through grid search, using fivefold stratified cross-validation repeated five times. Model reliability was ensured by performing train-test split over 30 iterations, with average measurements reported. RESULTS: The findings revealed that the proposed approach outperformed existing methods for classifying RAS subtasks and skills; the XGB and random forest models yielded high accuracy rates (88.49% and 88.56%, respectively) that were not significantly different (two-sample t-test; P-value = 0.9). CONCLUSION: These results underscore the potential of ML models to augment the objectivity and precision of RAS subtask and skill evaluation. Future research should consider exploring ways to optimize these models, particularly focusing on the classes identified as challenging in this study. Ultimately, this study marks a significant step towards a more refined, objective, and standardized approach to RAS training and competency 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".