In Vivo Laparoscopic Image De-Smoking Dataset, Evaluation, and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of effective algorithms for removing surgical smoke in laparoscopic surgery has been hindered by the absence of a paired dataset containing real smoky and smoke-free surgical scenes. As a result, existing de-smoking methods have been primarily based on synthetic datasets and non-reference image enhancement metrics, which fail to fully capture the complexity of in vivo surgical scenes. To address this gap, we present a novel paired dataset derived from laparoscopic surgical recordings by identifying video sequences with relatively stationary scenes where smoke emerges. Our approach includes a robust motion-tracking technique that compensates for involuntary patient movements, ensuring reliable pairing of smoky images and their corresponding smoke-free ground truths. From 132 laparoscopic prostatectomy recordings, we curated 41 video sequences, resulting in a dataset of 2000 smoky-to-smoke-free image pairs. From 45 cholecystectomy recordings, we extracted 68 video sequences, resulting in an additional dataset of 1000 image pairs. Using this unique dataset, we evaluated a representative selection of current de-smoking methods, confirming their effectiveness while also highlighting their limitations. Furthermore, we critically revisited the commonly used atmospheric scattering model, atmospheric colour assumptions, and the dark channel prior. Our analysis demonstrated that the traditional atmospheric scattering model with "gray smoke" assumption introduces significant residual errors in the green and blue channels, while the dark channel prior maintains a strong correlation with smoke intensity. These observations suggest that, while less effective for direct smoke separation, the dark channel prior has potential to serve as a useful attention map for deep learning-based de-smoking approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".