Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33664317›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Automation of surgical skill assessment using a three-stage machine learning algorithm.

Joël L Lavanchy, Joel Zindel, Kadir Kirtac, Isabell Twick, Enes Hosgor, Daniel Candinas, Guido Beldi

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The interpretable surgical temporal informer: explainable surgical time completion prediction.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Modeling anesthetic-drug label detection for low-resource operating rooms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joël L LavanchyDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Joel ZindelDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Kadir KirtacCaresyntax, Komturstr. 18A, 12099, Berlin, Germany.
Isabell TwickCaresyntax, Komturstr. 18A, 12099, Berlin, Germany.
Enes HosgorCaresyntax, Komturstr. 18A, 12099, Berlin, Germany.
Daniel CandinasDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Guido BeldiDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. guido.beldi@insel.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical skills are associated with clinical outcomes. To improve surgical skills and thereby reduce adverse outcomes, continuous surgical training and feedback is required. Currently, assessment of surgical skills is a manual and time-consuming process which is prone to subjective interpretation. This study aims to automate surgical skill assessment in laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos using machine learning algorithms. To address this, a three-stage machine learning method is proposed: first, a Convolutional Neural Network was trained to identify and localize surgical instruments. Second, motion features were extracted from the detected instrument localizations throughout time. Third, a linear regression model was trained based on the extracted motion features to predict surgical skills. This three-stage modeling approach achieved an accuracy of 87 ± 0.2% in distinguishing good versus poor surgical skill. While the technique cannot reliably quantify the degree of surgical skill yet it represents an important advance towards automation of surgical skill assessment.

Identifiers

PMID33664317
PMCPMC7933408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.