Can Microinstrument Motion Metrics of Distance, Speed, and Acceleration Indicate Surgical Task Complexity? An AI-Driven Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectifying the quality of microsurgical technique is both crucial and challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether microinstrument motion metricscan reflect the complexity of microsurgical tasks. The laboratory experiment involved 13 right-handed neurosurgeons tasked with using microsurgical scissors to cut a white thread at a spot marked by a purple dot under the microscope. Each participant completed the task under four consecutive conditions: with or without wrist stabilization on a support, both before and after muscle load. Using the promptable transformer model, we segmented microsurgical instruments from video recordings and extracted their skeletons and centers of mass. From the time series of the center of mass X and Y coordinates, we derived seven additional time series for velocity, acceleration, and the jerk along the X and Y axes, as well as the smoothness metric. We generated thirty-three statistical features for each time series using the feasts R package. These motion features were then compared pairwise across various tasks. Of the 1782 tests conducted, 164 (or 9.2%) revealed statistically significant differences in 66 motion features. Our results provide a proof-of-concept, showing that AI-derived microsurgical motion features can reflect the complexity of conditions encountered by the microsurgeon during surgery.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".