Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34784415›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021

PhacoTrainer: A Multicenter Study of Deep Learning for Activity Recognition in Cataract Surgical Videos.

Hsu-Hang Yeh, Anjal M Jain, Olivia Fox, Sophia Y Wang

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Advances in cataract surgery: is a new era on the horizon?Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparing code-free and bespoke deep learning approaches in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

4 authors.

Hsu-Hang YehDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Anjal M JainDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Olivia FoxKrieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sophia Y WangDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To build and evaluate deep learning models for recognizing cataract surgical steps from whole-length surgical videos with minimal preprocessing, including identification of routine and complex steps. Methods: We collected 298 cataract surgical videos from 12 resident surgeons across 6 sites and excluded 30 incomplete, duplicated, and combination surgery videos. Videos were downsampled at 1 frame/second. Trained annotators labeled 13 steps of surgery: create wound, injection into the eye, capsulorrhexis, hydrodissection, phacoemulsification, irrigation/aspiration, place lens, remove viscoelastic, close wound, advanced technique/other, stain with trypan blue, manipulating iris, and subconjunctival injection. We trained two deep learning models, one based on the VGG16 architecture (VGG model) and the second using VGG16 followed by a long short-term memory network (convolutional neural network [CNN]- recurrent neural network [RNN] model). Class activation maps were visualized using Grad-CAM. Results: Overall top 1 prediction accuracy was 76% for VGG model (93% for top 3 accuracy) and 84% for the CNN-RNN model (97% for top 3 accuracy). The microaveraged area under receiver-operating characteristic curves was 0.97 for the VGG model and 0.99 for the CNN-RNN model. The microaveraged average precision score was 0.83 for the VGG model and 0.92 for the CNN-RNN model. Class activation maps revealed the model was appropriately focused on the instrumentation used in each step to identify which step was being performed. Conclusions: Deep learning models can classify cataract surgical activities on a frame-by-frame basis with remarkably high accuracy, especially routine surgical steps. Translational Relevance: An automated system for recognition of cataract surgical steps could provide to residents automated feedback metrics, such as the length of time spent on each step.

Indexed as

CataractCataract ExtractionDeep LearningHumansNeural Networks, ComputerROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID34784415
PMCPMC8606857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.