ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Artificial Intelligence for Surgical Scene Understanding: A Systematic Review and Reporting Quality Meta-Analysis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surgical scene understanding (SSU) describes the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to provide an understanding of visual components of surgical imaging data, such as laparoscopic surgery videos. While hundreds of publications report AI capabilities to identify instruments, anatomical structures, and other contextual data and testify potential for real-time support in the operating room, the clinical implementation of SSU remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis (registered in the PROSPERO database under CRD420251005301) assesses the current state and research gaps in computational SSU, focusing on data curation, model design, validation, uncertainty estimation, performance metrics, reporting quality, and clinical applicability. Studies were included if they analyzed intraoperative data from minimally invasive abdominal surgeries in humans, developed computational SSU methods, and reported trainable models with formal validation and performance metrics. A total of 188 studies from six literature databases were included. Most relied on small, single-center datasets, often from laparoscopic cholecystectomies, with limited metadata and topical diversity. Research was largely descriptive, with limited reporting on clinical relevance, limitations, code availability, and model uncertainty. Validation was often inadequate, typically relying on simple hold-out strategies, with limited testing on external datasets and purely technical validation approaches without any clinical expert involvement. Clinical translation was addressed in only eleven works. Overall, studies showed minimal progress toward real-world application. Our findings highlight the need for diverse, multi-institutional datasets, robust validation practices, and clinically driven development to unlock the full potential of SSU in surgical practice.
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.