Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36658282›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

An artificial intelligence model that automatically labels roux-en-Y gastric bypasses, a comparison to trained surgeon annotators.

Danyal Fer, Bokai Zhang, Rami Abukhalil, Varun Goel, Bharti Goel, Jocelyn Barker, Bindu Kalesan, Irene Barragan, Mary Lynn Gaddis, Pablo Garcia Kilroy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Danyal FerUniversity of California, San Francisco-East Bay, General Surgery, Oakland, CA, USA.
Bokai ZhangJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Rami AbukhalilJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. rabukhal@its.jnj.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7157-8833
Varun GoelUniversity of California, San Francisco-East Bay, General Surgery, Oakland, CA, USA.
Bharti GoelJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Jocelyn BarkerJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Bindu KalesanJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Irene BarraganJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Mary Lynn GaddisJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Pablo Garcia KilroyJohnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) can automate certain tasks to improve data collection. Models have been created to annotate the steps of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). However, model performance has not been compared with individual surgeon annotator performance. We developed a model that automatically labels RYGB steps and compares its performance to surgeons. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 545 videos (17 surgeons) of laparoscopic RYGB procedures were collected. An annotation guide (12 steps, 52 tasks) was developed. Steps were annotated by 11 surgeons. Each video was annotated by two surgeons and a third reconciled the differences. A convolutional AI model was trained to identify steps and compared with manual annotation. For modeling, we used 390 videos for training, 95 for validation, and 60 for testing. The performance comparison between AI model versus manual annotation was performed using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) in a subset of 60 testing videos. We assessed the performance of the model at each step and poor performance was defined (F1-score < 80%).

resultsThe convolutional model identified 12 steps in the RYGB architecture. Model performance varied at each step [F1 > 90% for 7, and > 80% for 2]. The reconciled manual annotation data (F1 > 80% for > 5 steps) performed better than trainee's (F1 > 80% for 2-5 steps for 4 annotators, and < 2 steps for 4 annotators). In testing subset, certain steps had low performance, indicating potential ambiguities in surgical landmarks. Additionally, some videos were easier to annotate than others, suggesting variability. After controlling for variability, the AI algorithm was comparable to the manual (p < 0.0001).

conclusionAI can be used to identify surgical landmarks in RYGB comparable to the manual process. AI was more accurate to recognize some landmarks more accurately than surgeons. This technology has the potential to improve surgical training by assessing the learning curves of surgeons at scale.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidSurgeonsArtificial IntelligenceGastrectomyHumansRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceIntelligent video annotatorMachine learningProcedure segmentationRoux-en-Y gastric bypassSurgical assessment

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.