Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Training and Applications to Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Traditional evaluations of surgical skills in otolaryngology rely heavily on subjective assessments, which are prone to variability and bias. This study aims to examine advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) applications for surgical skills evaluation with a focus on their potential to enhance otolaryngology education. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar was conducted using search terms related to AI and surgical skills evaluation. REVIEW METHODS: A structured review of the literature up to November 2024 was performed. Two independent reviewers identified and analyzed relevant studies. Reference lists of selected articles were also screened to ensure comprehensiveness. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 56% (19/34) evaluated basic surgical tasks, such as hand-tying, open suturing, and robotic or laparoscopic procedures using bench-top simulators, while 44% (15/34) focused on specific surgical procedures across specialties, including otolaryngology (mastoidectomy, septoplasty, endoscopic sinus surgery, endoscopic carotid injury management), neurosurgery, urology, and general surgery. AI methods applied included deep learning, machine learning, and computer vision techniques. Classification accuracy ranged from 66% to 100% for kinematic, motion, and force data, and from 60% to 96% for video-based analyses of surgical skills. CONCLUSION: AI-driven assessment tools hold significant promise for otolaryngology surgical education. Automated feedback mechanisms can provide trainees with objective, data-driven insights into their performance, enabling enhanced benchmarking and accelerating learning curves. By adopting AI, otolaryngology has the potential to advance its training methodologies and improve outcomes for both trainees and patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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 | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".