MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408443825 · doi:10.54808/imcic2025.01.112

Quantitative Endosurgery Process Analysis by Machine Learning Method

2025· article· en· W4408443825 on OpenAlexaff
Bojan Nokovic, Andrew Lambe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrates how endoscopic surgical data can be analyzed using a supervised machine learning (ML) classifier. Before the process begins, a computer-generated 3D image representing a safe zone is inserted into the endoscopic view. During surgery, the Laparo- Guard Augmented Reality System collects positional data. We perform two types of analysis on the collected data. First, we analyze how the surgeon handles laparoscopic surgical tools based on the angular velocity and angular acceleration of the tool. Next, we examine the risk associated with the entire surgical process in relation to the safe zone using all collected data, including the average linear and angular speeds of the surgical tool.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207