Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31996995›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

SurgAI: deep learning for computerized laparoscopic image understanding in gynaecology.

Sabrina Madad Zadeh, Tom Francois, Lilian Calvet, Pauline Chauvet, Michel Canis, Adrien Bartoli, Nicolas Bourdel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sabrina Madad ZadehDepartment of Gynaecological Surgery, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 1 Place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Tom FrancoisEnCoV, Institut Pascal, CNRS, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Lilian CalvetEnCoV, Institut Pascal, CNRS, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Pauline ChauvetDepartment of Gynaecological Surgery, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 1 Place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Michel CanisDepartment of Gynaecological Surgery, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 1 Place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Adrien BartoliEnCoV, Institut Pascal, CNRS, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Nicolas BourdelDepartment of Gynaecological Surgery, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 1 Place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. nicolas.bourdel@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9103-860X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn laparoscopy, the digital camera offers surgeons the opportunity to receive support from image-guided surgery systems. Such systems require image understanding, the ability for a computer to understand what the laparoscope sees. Image understanding has recently progressed owing to the emergence of artificial intelligence and especially deep learning techniques. However, the state of the art of deep learning in gynaecology only offers image-based detection, reporting the presence or absence of an anatomical structure, without finding its location. A solution to the localisation problem is given by the concept of semantic segmentation, giving the detection and pixel-level location of a structure in an image. The state-of-the-art results in semantic segmentation are achieved by deep learning, whose usage requires a massive amount of annotated data. We propose the first dataset dedicated to this task and the first evaluation of deep learning-based semantic segmentation in gynaecology.

methodsWe used the deep learning method called Mask R-CNN. Our dataset has 461 laparoscopic images manually annotated with three classes: uterus, ovaries and surgical tools. We split our dataset in 361 images to train Mask R-CNN and 100 images to evaluate its performance.

resultsThe segmentation accuracy is reported in terms of percentage of overlap between the segmented regions from Mask R-CNN and the manually annotated ones. The accuracy is 84.5%, 29.6% and 54.5% for uterus, ovaries and surgical tools, respectively. An automatic detection of these structures was then inferred from the semantic segmentation results which led to state-of-the-art detection performance, except for the ovaries. Specifically, the detection accuracy is 97%, 24% and 86% for uterus, ovaries and surgical tools, respectively.

conclusionOur preliminary results are very promising, given the relatively small size of our initial dataset. The creation of an international surgical database seems essential.

Indexed as

Deep LearningFemaleGynecologyHumansLaparoscopyArtificial intelligenceDeep learningGynaecological surgeryLaparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.