ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Artificial intelligence for automatic FLS credentialing: highlighting and addressing current limitations.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) can automate technical skills assessment. Applied to the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS®), AI-driven credentialing could enhance evaluation consistency while reducing costs associated with human proctoring. However, existing studies fall short of demonstrating the reliability required for high-stakes assessments, often due to limited validation and suboptimal modeling strategies.
methodsA novel AI-based approach is proposed to assess the FLS peg transfer task from video recordings. The system analyzes each video frame to track the state of objects on the board (peg state) and classify user behavior during the task (surgical actions). Multiple AI models are used to generate these predictions, which are then refined using two post-processing techniques designed to enhance temporal consistency and task-specific accuracy. To ensure rigorous validation, we assess individual model performance, as commonly done by existing works, and introduce two new metrics-transfer precision and transfer recall-to measure the system's ability to replicate proctor-level evaluation.
resultsThe validation dataset includes 21 full-length videos of peg transfer tasks performed by 11 expert and 10 non-expert users. Individual AI models show good performance, with accuracy > 99% for peg state prediction and f1-score > 78% for action recognition, comparable with existing studies. However, when not using post-processing algorithms, transfer precision and recall only reach 22.86% and 55.56%, respectively, despite the good individual AI model performance. With the proposed post-processing, these metrics improve significantly to 80.44% and 96.51%.
conclusionThis study underscores the importance of task-specific validation and modeling strategies for developing robust AI systems suitable for automatic credentialing. While focused on the FLS peg transfer task, the proposed framework provides generalizable guidelines for building reliable AI-based assessment tools for both simulated and real surgical environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40864309What 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.