Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35408117›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Performance and Capability Assessment in Surgical Subtask Automation.

Tamás D Nagy, Tamás Haidegger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Tamás D NagyAntal Bejczy Center for Intelligent Robotics, EKIK, Óbuda University, Bécsi út 96/B, 1034 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-5485-9588
Tamás HaideggerAntal Bejczy Center for Intelligent Robotics, EKIK, Óbuda University, Bécsi út 96/B, 1034 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-1402-1139
Obuda University · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery (RAMIS) has reshaped the standard clinical practice during the past two decades. Many believe that the next big step in the advancement of RAMIS will be partial autonomy, which may reduce the fatigue and the cognitive load on the surgeon by performing the monotonous, time-consuming subtasks of the surgical procedure autonomously. Although serious research efforts are paid to this area worldwide, standard evaluation methods, metrics, or benchmarking techniques are still not formed. This article aims to fill the void in the research domain of surgical subtask automation by proposing standard methodologies for performance evaluation. For that purpose, a novel characterization model is presented for surgical automation. The current metrics for performance evaluation and comparison are overviewed and analyzed, and a workflow model is presented that can help researchers to identify and apply their choice of metrics. Existing systems and setups that serve or could serve as benchmarks are also introduced and the need for standard benchmarks in the field is articulated. Finally, the matter of Human-Machine Interface (HMI) quality, robustness, and the related legal and ethical issues are presented.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsAutomationBenchmarkingClinical CompetenceHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical Procedurespartial automationRAMISrobot surgery benchmarkingrobot surgery validation

Identifiers

PMID35408117
PMCPMC9002652
OpenAlexW4220700283

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.