Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39851346›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Use of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Instrument Recognition.

Syed Ali Haider, Olivia A Ho, Sahar Borna, Cesar A Gomez-Cabello, Sophia M Pressman, Dave Cole, Ajai Sehgal, Bradley C Leibovich, Antonio Jorge Forte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Advances in AI Technology in Healthcare.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Syed Ali HaiderDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Olivia A HoDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Sahar BornaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7845-7356
Cesar A Gomez-CabelloDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Sophia M PressmanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Dave ColeCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-2065-5089
Ajai SehgalCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-7562-8758
Bradley C LeibovichCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0043-6659
Antonio Jorge ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-7538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate identification of surgical instruments is crucial for efficient workflows and patient safety within the operating room, particularly in preventing complications such as retained surgical instruments. Artificial Intelligence (AI) models have shown the potential to automate this process. This study evaluates the accuracy of publicly available Large Language Models (LLMs)-ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, and Gemini-and a specialized commercial mobile application, Surgical-Instrument Directory (SID 2.0), in identifying surgical instruments from images. The study utilized a dataset of 92 high-resolution images of 25 surgical instruments (retractors, forceps, scissors, and trocars) photographed from multiple angles. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, weighted precision, recall, and F1 score. ChatGPT-4o exhibited the highest accuracy (89.1%) in categorizing instruments (e.g., scissors, forceps). SID 2.0 (77.2%) and ChatGPT-4 (76.1%) achieved comparable accuracy, while Gemini (44.6%) demonstrated lower accuracy in this task. For precise subtype identification of instrument names (like "Mayo scissors" or "Kelly forceps"), all models had low accuracy, with SID 2.0 having an accuracy of 39.1%, followed by ChatGPT-4o (33.69%). Subgroup analysis revealed ChatGPT-4 and 4o recognized trocars in all instances. Similarly, Gemini identified surgical scissors in all instances. In conclusion, publicly available LLMs can reliably identify surgical instruments at the category level, with ChatGPT-4o demonstrating an overall edge. However, precise subtype identification remains a challenge for all models. These findings highlight the potential of AI-driven solutions to enhance surgical-instrument management and underscore the need for further refinements to improve accuracy and support patient safety.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligencecomputer visionmultimodal AIsurgical instrument

Identifiers

PMID39851346
PMCPMC11761865

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.