ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Explainable machine learning for automated robotic surgical skill assessment using rich kinematic features.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The robotic PIANO: a critical narrative review of surgeon-controlled operative polyphony, human factors, and robotic training.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) extends minimally invasive surgery by restoring dexterity, tremor filtration, and ergonomic console control compared with open procedures and conventional laparoscopy. Objective, scalable skill assessment from console kinematics is therefore clinically relevant for competency-based training. Existing JIGSAWS studies often rely on random trial splits, isolated handcrafted features, or black-box models without subject-independent validation or transparent explanations. This study presents an explainable machine learning framework for automated skill classification from kinematic data alone. Using the public JHU-ISI Gesture and Skill Assessment Working Set (JIGSAWS), comprising 103 trials from 40 subjects across three dry-lab tasks, 633 trial-level kinematic features were extracted and six supervised classifiers were compared under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (LOSO-CV). Random Forest (RF) with feature standardization was selected as the primary model; interpretability was assessed with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Key gaps addressed include: subject-independent evaluation on all trials, systematic classifier comparison on identical features, collinearity-aware feature analysis, global and local SHAP attribution, and ablations (mean/standard-deviation features, segment-level modeling, PCA reduction, deep sequences, cross-task transfer). Under pooled LOSO-CV, RF with advanced kinematic features achieved 97.1% accuracy and Cohen's [Formula: see text] (macro-F1 [Formula: see text]; balanced accuracy [Formula: see text]), outperforming PCA-reduced features (92.2%) and segment-level modeling (88.3%). SHAP analysis identified jerk and velocity variability in master-tool channels as dominant discriminators. Cross-task evaluation showed strong in-task performance (97-100%) but reduced off-task transfer (61-95%). These benchmark findings may inform explainable kinematics-based training analytics; external multi-center validation remains required before clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474865What 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.