ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024
Surgical phase and instrument recognition: how to identify appropriate dataset splits.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced deep learning framework for real-time instrument detection and tracking in laparoscopic surgery using advanced augmentation and tracking techniques.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Why thorough open data descriptions matters more than ever in the age of AI: opportunities for cardiovascular research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMachine learning approaches can only be reliably evaluated if training, validation, and test data splits are representative and not affected by the absence of classes. Surgical workflow and instrument recognition are two tasks that are complicated in this manner, because of heavy data imbalances resulting from different length of phases and their potential erratic occurrences. Furthermore, sub-properties like instrument (co-)occurrence are usually not particularly considered when defining the split.
methodsWe present a publicly available data visualization tool that enables interactive exploration of dataset partitions for surgical phase and instrument recognition. The application focuses on the visualization of the occurrence of phases, phase transitions, instruments, and instrument combinations across sets. Particularly, it facilitates assessment of dataset splits, especially regarding identification of sub-optimal dataset splits.
resultsWe performed analysis of the datasets Cholec80, CATARACTS, CaDIS, M2CAI-workflow, and M2CAI-tool using the proposed application. We were able to uncover phase transitions, individual instruments, and combinations of surgical instruments that were not represented in one of the sets. Addressing these issues, we identify possible improvements in the splits using our tool. A user study with ten participants demonstrated that the participants were able to successfully solve a selection of data exploration tasks.
conclusionIn highly unbalanced class distributions, special care should be taken with respect to the selection of an appropriate dataset split because it can greatly influence the assessments of machine learning approaches. Our interactive tool allows for determination of better splits to improve current practices in the field. The live application is available at https://cardio-ai.github.io/endovis-ml/ .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.