ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Development of an AI-driven digital assistance system for real-time safety evaluation and quality control in laparoscopic liver surgery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- External validation and clinical readiness of intraoperative video AI in general surgery: a systematic review.Surgery today · 2026Review
- [Application of artificial intelligence for surgical skill assessment and quality control in minimally invasive surgery: progress, problems and prospect].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: By performing AI-driven workflow analysis, intelligent surgical systems can provide real-time intraoperative quality control and alerts. We have upgraded an Intelligent Surgical Assistant (ISA) through integrating a redesigned hierarchical recognition algorithm, an expanded surgical dataset, and an optimized real-time intraoperative feedback framework. Objective: We aimed to assess the accuracy of the ISA in real-time instrument tracking, organ segmentation, and phase classification during laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy. Methods: In this retrospective multi-center analysis, a total of 142861 annotated frames were collected from 403 laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy videos across 4 centers to build a comprehensive database of surgical video annotations. Each frame was labeled for surgical phase, organs, and instruments. The algorithm in the ISA was retrained using a hybrid deep learning framework integrating instrument tracking, organ segmentation, and phase classification. We then established a scoring system for surgical image recognition and evaluated the algorithm's recognition accuracy and inter-operator consistency across different surgical teams. Results: The upgraded ISA achieved an accuracy of 89% in real-time recognition of instruments and organs. The programmatic phase classification for laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy reached an average accuracy of 91% (p<0.001), enabling a correct recognition of surgical events. The inter-operator variability in recognition was reduced to 14.3%, highlighting the potential of AI-assisted quality control to standardize intraoperative alerts. Overall, the ISA demonstrated high precision and consistency in phase recognition and operative field evaluation across all phases (accuracy >87%, specificity ~90% in each phase). Notably, critical phases (Phase 1 and Phase 5) were identified with an exceptional accuracy area under the curve (AUC 0.96 in Phase 1; AUC 0.87 in Phase 5), indicating that key surgical procedures could be phased with very low false-alarm rates. Conclusions: The optimized ISA provides a highly accurate real-time interpretation of surgical phases and a strong potential to standardize surgical procedures, thus guaranteeing the outcomes and safety of laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy.
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.