ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
An artificial intelligence model that automatically labels roux-en-Y gastric bypasses, a comparison to trained surgeon annotators.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolution of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Current Applications and Clinical Implications.Obesity surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in bariatric surgery: a comprehensive systematic review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in the operating room: A systematic review of AI models for surgical phase, instruments and anatomical structure identification.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing artificial intelligence and healthcare professional performance in surgical and interventional video analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Its Role in Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Use of artificial intelligence in the analysis of digital videos of invasive surgical procedures: scoping review.BJS open · 2025Article
- International expert consensus on the current status and future prospects of artificial intelligence in metabolic and bariatric surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted phase recognition and skill assessment in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
36658282What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.