ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Automatically rating trainee skill at a pediatric laparoscopic suturing task.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of the training process of minimally invasive surgery in neonates and infants.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Pooled it
- External validation of a motion capture-based surgical skill assessment system in laparoscopic simulation training environments.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: a Scoping Review of the Evidence for Efficacy and Future Directions.Medical science educator · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of paediatric surgery residents' perspectives.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Training in Laparoscopic Suturing: A Systematic Review of Skills Mastery, Retention, and Clinical Performance in Surgical Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Systematic review of machine learning applications using nonoptical motion tracking in surgery.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review of Haptic Technologies and Their Value for Training, Rehabilitation, and the Education of Persons with Special Needs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Acquisition and usage of robotic surgical data for machine learning analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- An Automated Skill Assessment Framework Based on Visual Motion Signals and a Deep Neural Network in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Toward Correcting Anxious Movements Using Haptic Cues on the Da Vinci Surgical Robot.Proceedings of the ... IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics · 2022Article
- Machine learning for technical skill assessment in surgery: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Endoscopic Image-Based Skill Assessment in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Using natural language processing to compare task-specific verbal cues in coached versus noncoached cardiac arrest teams during simulated pediatrics resuscitation.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence developments in medical education: a conceptual and practical framework.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2020Article
- Applications and Challenges of Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Integrative Review.JMIR medical education · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgeons must acquire complex technical skills while minimizing patient risk, a challenge that is magnified in pediatric surgery. Trainees need realistic practice with frequent detailed feedback, but human grading is tedious and subjective. We aim to validate a novel motion-tracking system and algorithms that automatically evaluate trainee performance of a pediatric laparoscopic suturing task.
methodsSubjects (n = 32) ranging from medical students to fellows performed two trials of intracorporeal suturing in a custom pediatric laparoscopic box trainer after watching a video of ideal performance. The motions of the tools and endoscope were recorded over time using a magnetic sensing system, and both tool grip angles were recorded using handle-mounted flex sensors. An expert rated the 63 trial videos on five domains from the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS), yielding summed scores from 5 to 20. Motion data from each trial were processed to calculate 280 features. We used regularized least squares regression to identify the most predictive features from different subsets of the motion data and then built six regression tree models that predict summed OSATS score. Model accuracy was evaluated via leave-one-subject-out cross-validation.
resultsThe model that used all sensor data streams performed best, achieving 71% accuracy at predicting summed scores within 2 points, 89% accuracy within 4, and a correlation of 0.85 with human ratings. 59% of the rounded average OSATS score predictions were perfect, and 100% were within 1 point. This model employed 87 features, including none based on completion time, 77 from tool tip motion, 3 from tool tip visibility, and 7 from grip angle.
conclusionsOur novel hardware and software automatically rated previously unseen trials with summed OSATS scores that closely match human expert ratings. Such a system facilitates more feedback-intensive surgical training and may yield insights into the fundamental components of surgical skill.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.