ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Action classification for endoscopic pituitary adenoma resection: a consensus-based study.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePituitary adenoma resection via the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach is technically demanding, with outcomes influenced by surgical skill. However, the association between technique and outcomes remains poorly defined. Existing workflow analyses focus on broad procedural steps and phases, but a more detailed, action-level approach is needed to capture skill-related variation. While AI shows promise in automating workflow analysis, its use at the action level is limited. This study develops and validates a reproducible action-level classification ontology for endoscopic pituitary adenoma resection, establishing the structured annotation foundation required for future AI-based workflow and skill analysis.
methodsEndoscopic videos of primary pituitary adenoma resections were collected from two high-volume international pituitary centres. A multi-disciplinary panel of neurosurgeons and data scientists iteratively reviewed and annotated surgical actions to establish a standardized classification system. Actions were categorized into triplets (instrument, target, verb), with additional temporal annotations. To evaluate framework reliability, an independent annotator followed a structured annotation guide, and inter-annotator agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa.
resultsA consensus-based classification ontology was developed, comprising 9 verbs, 12 instruments, and 7 targets from the review of 18 endoscopic pituitary adenoma resections (9 microadenomas, 9 macroadenomas). Action distribution differed between micro- and macroadenomas, with grasping being the predominant action in microadenomas (72% of right-hand frames) and blunt dissection and traction dominating macroadenomas. The left hand primarily performed non-meaningful movements (88% of macroadenoma frames, 55% of microadenoma frames), while the right hand was responsible for more deliberate tool-tissue interactions. Inter-rater reliability analysis demonstrated substantial to near-perfect agreement (κ = 0.69-0.95), confirming the reproducibility of the annotation system.
conclusionWhile acknowledging that conclusions remain limited by dataset size and validation stability, this study establishes a robust and interpretable action classification ontology for pituitary adenoma resection. The ontology enables high-quality, standardized labelling for future computer-vision AI works, and lays the groundwork for evaluating whether action-level annotation improves surgical outcome prediction and automated skill assessment.
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.