Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36932188›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

TEsoNet: knowledge transfer in surgical phase recognition from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

J A Eckhoff, Y Ban, G Rosman, D T Müller, D A Hashimoto, E Witkowski, B Babic, D Rus, C Bruns, H F Fuchs and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Towards multimodal graph neural networks for surgical instrument anticipation.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

J A Eckhoff *Surgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC339, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. jeckhoff@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0805-8050
Y Ban *Surgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC339, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
G RosmanSurgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC339, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
D T MüllerDepartment of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpenerstrasse 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
D A HashimotoDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
E WitkowskiSurgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC339, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
B BabicDepartment of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpenerstrasse 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
D RusComputer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar St, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
C BrunsDepartment of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpenerstrasse 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
H F Fuchs *Department of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpenerstrasse 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
O Meireles *Surgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WAC339, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
University Hospital Cologne · DEMassachusetts General Hospital · USVassar College · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical phase recognition using computer vision presents an essential requirement for artificial intelligence-assisted analysis of surgical workflow. Its performance is heavily dependent on large amounts of annotated video data, which remain a limited resource, especially concerning highly specialized procedures. Knowledge transfer from common to more complex procedures can promote data efficiency. Phase recognition models trained on large, readily available datasets may be extrapolated and transferred to smaller datasets of different procedures to improve generalizability. The conditions under which transfer learning is appropriate and feasible remain to be established.

methodsWe defined ten operative phases for the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy through expert consensus. A dataset of 40 videos was annotated accordingly. The knowledge transfer capability of an established model architecture for phase recognition (CNN + LSTM) was adapted to generate a "Transferal Esophagectomy Network" (TEsoNet) for co-training and transfer learning from laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy, exploring different training set compositions and training weights.

resultsThe explored model architecture is capable of accurate phase detection in complex procedures, such as Esophagectomy, even with low quantities of training data. Knowledge transfer between two upper gastrointestinal procedures is feasible and achieves reasonable accuracy with respect to operative phases with high procedural overlap.

conclusionRobust phase recognition models can achieve reasonable yet phase-specific accuracy through transfer learning and co-training between two related procedures, even when exposed to small amounts of training data of the target procedure. Further exploration is required to determine appropriate data amounts, key characteristics of the training procedure and temporal annotation methods required for successful transferal phase recognition. Transfer learning across different procedures addressing small datasets may increase data efficiency. Finally, to enable the surgical application of AI for intraoperative risk mitigation, coverage of rare, specialized procedures needs to be explored.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsLaparoscopyArtificial IntelligenceEsophagectomyGastrectomyHumansRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceComputer visionIvor–Lewis esophagectomyPhase recognitionTransfer learningUpper gastrointestinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID36932188
PMCPMC10156818
OpenAlexW4327747208

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.