Multimodal graph representation learning for robust surgical workflow recognition with adversarial feature disentanglement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical workflow recognition is vital for automating tasks, supporting decision-making, and training novice surgeons, ultimately improving patient safety and standardizing procedures. However, data corruption can lead to performance degradation due to issues like occlusion from bleeding or smoke in surgical scenes and problems with data storage and transmission. Therefore, a robust workflow recognition model is urgently needed. In this case, we explore a robust graph-based multimodal approach to integrating vision and kinematic data to enhance accuracy and reliability. Vision data captures dynamic surgical scenes, while kinematic data provides precise movement information, overcoming limitations of visual recognition under adverse conditions. We propose a multimodal Graph Representation network with Adversarial feature Disentanglement (GRAD) for robust surgical workflow recognition in challenging scenarios with domain shifts or corrupted data. Specifically, we introduce a Multimodal Disentanglement Graph Network (MDGNet) that captures fine-grained visual information while explicitly modeling the complex relationships between vision and kinematic embeddings through graph-based message modeling. To align feature spaces across modalities, we propose a Vision-Kinematic Adversarial (VKA) framework that leverages adversarial training to reduce modality gaps and improve feature consistency. Furthermore, we design a Contextual Calibrated Decoder, incorporating temporal and contextual priors to enhance robustness against domain shifts and corrupted data. Extensive comparative and ablation experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our model and proposed modules. Specifically, we achieved an accuracy of 86.87% and 92.38% on two public datasets, respectively. Moreover, our robustness experiments show that our method effectively handles data corruption during storage and transmission, exhibiting excellent stability and robustness. Our approach aims to advance automated surgical gesture recognition, addressing the complexities and dynamism inherent in surgical procedures.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".