PitVis-2023 challenge: Workflow recognition in videos of endoscopic pituitary surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of computer vision applied to videos of minimally invasive surgery is ever-growing. Workflow recognition pertains to the automated recognition of various aspects of a surgery, including: which surgical steps are performed; and which surgical instruments are used. This information can later be used to assist clinicians when learning the surgery or during live surgery. The Pituitary Vision (PitVis) 2023 Challenge tasks the community to step and instrument recognition in videos of endoscopic pituitary surgery. This is a particularly challenging task when compared to other minimally invasive surgeries due to: the smaller working space, which limits and distorts vision; and higher frequency of instrument and step switching, which requires more precise model predictions. Participants were provided with 25-videos, with results presented at the MICCAI-2023 conference as part of the Endoscopic Vision 2023 Challenge in Vancouver, Canada, on 08-Oct-2023. There were 18-submissions from 9-teams across 6-countries, using a variety of deep learning models. The top performing model for step recognition utilised a transformer based architecture, uniquely using an autoregressive decoder with a positional encoding input. The top performing model for instrument recognition utilised a spatial encoder followed by a temporal encoder, which uniquely used a 2-layer temporal architecture. In both cases, these models outperformed purely spatial based models, illustrating the importance of sequential and temporal information. This PitVis-2023 therefore demonstrates state-of-the-art computer vision models in minimally invasive surgery are transferable to a new dataset. Benchmark results are provided in the paper, and the dataset is publicly available at: https://doi.org/10.5522/04/26531686.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.014 |
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".