Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42113335›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026

Sum-of-Checks: structured reasoning for surgical safety with large vision-language models.

Weiqiu You, Cassandra Goldberg, Amin Madani, Daniel A Hashimoto, Eric Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Weiqiu YouDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. weiqiuy@seas.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-9326-1077
Cassandra GoldbergDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Amin MadaniDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Daniel A HashimotoDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eric WongDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health D24AC00253-00American Surgical Association Foundation 10096783Defense Sciences Office, DARPA HR00112520300National Science Foundation 2442421Schmidt Sciences G-25-67983
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate assessment of the Critical View of Safety (CVS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is essential to prevent bile duct injury, a complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While large vision-language models (LVLMs) offer flexible reasoning, their predictions remain difficult to audit and unreliable on safety-critical surgical tasks.

methodsWe introduce Sum-of-Checks, a framework that decomposes each CVS criterion into expert-defined reasoning checks reflecting clinically relevant visual evidence. Given a laparoscopic frame, an LVLM evaluates each check, producing a binary judgment and justification. Criterion-level scores are computed via fixed, weighted aggregation of check outcomes. We evaluate on the Endoscapes2023 benchmark using three frontier LVLMs, comparing against direct prompting, chain-of-thought, and sub-question decomposition, each with and without few-shot examples.

resultsSum-of-Checks improves average frame-level mean average precision by 12-14% relative to the best baseline across all three models and criteria. Analysis of individual checks reveals that LVLMs are reliable on observational checks (e.g., visibility, tool obstruction) but show substantial variability on decision-critical anatomical evidence.

conclusionStructuring surgical reasoning into expert-aligned verification checks improves both accuracy and transparency of LVLM-based CVS assessment, demonstrating that explicitly separating evidence elicitation from decision-making is critical for reliable and auditable surgical AI systems.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicIntraoperative ComplicationsPatient SafetyBile DuctsHumansLarge Language ModelsCritical View of SafetyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyLarge vision-language modelsSurgical reasoning

Identifiers

PMID42113335
PMCPMC13451526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.