ArticleScientific reports2025
Phase recognition in manual Small-Incision cataract surgery with MS-TCN + + on the novel SICS-105 dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cataract-LMM Large-Scale Multi-Source Multi-Task Benchmark for Deep Learning in Surgical Video Analysis.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: Practical Applications, Subspecialty Evidence and Real-World Deployment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Advances in the application of artificial intelligence in ophthalmic education and clinical training.Frontiers in medicine · 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
Manual Small-Incision Cataract Surgery (SICS) is a prevalent technique in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) but understudied with respect to computer assisted surgery. This prospective cross-sectional study introduces the first SICS video dataset, evaluates effectiveness of phase recognition through deep learning (DL) using the MS-TCN + + architecture, and compares its results with the well-studied phacoemulsification procedure using the Cataract-101 public dataset. Our novel SICS-105 dataset involved 105 patients recruited at Sankara Eye Hospital in India. Performance is evaluated with frame-wise accuracy, edit distance, F1-score, Precision-Recall AUC, sensitivity, and specificity. The MS-TCN + + architecture performs better on the Cataract-101 dataset, with an accuracy of 89.97% [CI 86.69-93.46%] compared to 85.56% [80.63-92.09%] on the SICS-105 dataset (ROC AUC 99.10% [98.34-99.51%] vs. 98.22% [97.16-99.26%]). The accuracy distribution and confidence-intervals overlap and the ROC AUC values range 46.20 to 94.18%. Even though DL is found to be effective for phase recognition in SICS, the larger number of phases and longer duration makes it more challenging compared to phacoemulsification. To support further developments, we make our dataset open access. This research marks a crucial step towards improving postoperative analysis and training for SICS.
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.