MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407250030 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1803348

Enhancing Surgical Video Phase Recognition with Advanced AI Models for Endoscopic Pituitary Tumor Surgery

2025· article· en· W4407250030 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Cook, Jonathan Chainey, Ruth Lau, Margaux Masson-Forsythe, Daniel A. Donoho, Juan Vivanco Suarez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndoscopic surgeryMedicineSurgeryComputer scienceEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Operative videos are often used as a source of surgical education and demonstration. With improvements in computer vision, surgical video analytics has revolutionized the analysis of surgical performance. However, surgical videos, particularly skull base procedures, are lengthy, require significant manual effort to optimize for downstream functions, and are poorly delineated. Detecting and identifying phases of surgery can help surgeons quickly skip to parts of the surgery that are applicable for education and demonstration and provide useful, targeted analytical insights. We introduce an artificial intelligence model designed to segment pituitary tumor surgery into four distinct and essential phases: nasal, sphenoid, sellar, and closure. This was achieved by collaborating with a global team of surgeons to create an extensive dataset of labeled phase videos. Method: Our total dataset includes 127 video clips across 38 case videos from 3 contributing centers. We split our dataset into 80% training data and 20% validation and test data. We developed two deep-learning model pipelines to segment the phases of pituitary tumor surgery. The first pipeline employs a state-of-the-art video transformer model to directly predict surgical phases from video input. The second pipeline generates frame-by-frame embeddings, which are then processed using an MSTCN++ (Multi-Stage Temporal Convolutional Network) model to predict phases. A post-processing stage utilizing an accumulator is applied to enhance the accuracy and consistency of the predictions. This stage mitigates any erratic predictions. Our approach is validated using a comprehensive dataset of labeled phase videos provided by a global team of surgeons. Also included are remapped and adapted data from the PitVis dataset (PitVis dataset [data set]. Synapse. https://www.synapse.org/Synapse:syn51232283/wiki/621581). Results: The performance of the two deep learning model pipelines was evaluated using accuracy, precision, and F1 score as the primary metrics. These metrics provided a comprehensive assessment of the model’s ability to segment the surgical phases accurately and precisely. The embeddings pipeline achieved an accuracy of 77.7% over the test set, whereas the video transformer achieved an accuracy of 72%. In addition to quantitative metrics, visual segmentation timelines were generated for a visual performance analysis ([ Fig. 1 ]), the additional smoothing effects of the accumulator in postprocessing are also visible. These timelines helped illustrate the phase prediction’s effectiveness and identify any discrepancies or areas for improvement in the segmentation process. Fig. 1 Visual timeline predictions of phases. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the effectiveness of two deep-learning model pipelines in segmenting Pituitary Tumor Surgery into four distinct phases. By leveraging the video transformer model and a combination of frame-by-frame embeddings with the MSTCN++ model, we achieved high accuracy, precision, and F1 scores. The post-processing stage using an accumulator further refined these predictions, resulting in coherent and reliable phase segmentations. Including remapped and adapted data from the PitVis dataset, combined with visual segmentation timelines, provided robust performance analysis and valuable insights. This approach not only enhances surgical training and performance but also has the potential to be adapted to other types of surgeries, contributing to the advancement of surgical analytics and education. Publication History Article published online: 07 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base→Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→