Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37191734›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2023

Neurosurgical skills analysis by machine learning models: systematic review.

Oleg Titov, Andrey Bykanov, David Pitskhelauri

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Oleg TitovBurdenko Neurosurgery Center, Moscow, Russia. oleg96titov@mail.ru.
Andrey BykanovBurdenko Neurosurgery Center, Moscow, Russia.
David PitskhelauriBurdenko Neurosurgery Center, Moscow, Russia.
Burdenko Neurosurgery Institute · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) models are being actively used in modern medicine, including neurosurgery. This study aimed to summarize the current applications of ML in the analysis and assessment of neurosurgical skills. We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for eligible studies published until November 15, 2022, and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of the included articles. Of the 261 studies identified, we included 17 in the final analysis. Studies were most commonly related to oncological, spinal, and vascular neurosurgery using microsurgical and endoscopic techniques. Machine learning-evaluated tasks included subpial brain tumor resection, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, hemostasis of the lacerated internal carotid artery, brain vessel dissection and suturing, glove microsuturing, lumbar hemilaminectomy, and bone drilling. The data sources included files extracted from VR simulators and microscopic and endoscopic videos. The ML application was aimed at classifying participants into several expertise levels, analysis of differences between experts and novices, surgical instrument recognition, division of operation into phases, and prediction of blood loss. In two articles, ML models were compared with those of human experts. The machines outperformed humans in all tasks. The most popular algorithms used to classify surgeons by skill level were the support vector machine and k-nearest neighbors, and their accuracy exceeded 90%. The "you only look once" detector and RetinaNet usually solved the problem of detecting surgical instruments - their accuracy was approximately 70%. The experts differed by more confident contact with tissues, higher bimanuality, smaller distance between the instrument tips, and relaxed and focused state of the mind. The average MERSQI score was 13.9 (from 18). There is growing interest in the use of ML in neurosurgical training. Most studies have focused on the evaluation of microsurgical skills in oncological neurosurgery and on the use of virtual simulators; however, other subspecialties, skills, and simulators are being investigated. Machine learning models effectively solve different neurosurgical tasks related to skill classification, object detection, and outcome prediction. Properly trained ML models outperform human efficacy. Further research on ML application in neurosurgery is needed.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeurosurgeryAlgorithmsHumansLaminectomyNeurosurgical ProceduresArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningNeurosurgeryNeurosurgical skillsNeurosurgical training

Identifiers

PMID37191734
OpenAlexW4376642540

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.