From Decision to Action in Surgical Autonomy: Multi-Modal Large Language Models for Robot-Assisted Blood Suction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has impacted research in robotics and automation. While progress has been made in integrating LLMs into general robotics tasks, a noticeable void persists in their adoption in more specific domains such as surgery, where critical factors such as reasoning, explainability, and safety are paramount. Achieving autonomy in robotic surgery, which entails the ability to reason and adapt to changes in the environment, remains a significant challenge. In this work, we propose a multi-modal LLM integration in robot-assisted surgery for autonomous blood suction. The reasoning and prioritization are delegated to the higher-level task-planning LLM, and the motion planning and execution are handled by the lower-level deep reinforcement learning model, creating a distributed agency between the two components. As surgical operations are highly dynamic and may encounter unforeseen circumstances, blood clots and active bleeding were introduced to influence decision-making. Results showed that using a multi-modal LLM as a higher-level reasoning unit can account for these surgical complexities to achieve a level of reasoning previously unattainable in robot-assisted surgeries. These findings demonstrate the potential of multi-modal LLMs to significantly enhance contextual understanding and decision-making in robotic-assisted surgeries, marking a step toward autonomous surgical systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".