Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42488379›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Systematic analysis of evaluation metrics for deep learning-based surgical phase recognition in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Gizem Özkurt, Flakë Bajraktari, Peter P Pott

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Gizem ÖzkurtInstitute of Medical Device Technology, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Flakë BajraktariInstitute of Medical Device Technology, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Peter P PottInstitute of Medical Device Technology, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation metrics are essential for assessing the performance of AI models and enabling comparability across different approaches. However, in surgical phase recognition, their application remains inconsistent. This study provides a systematic analysis of evaluation metrics used in this field, aiming to support standardization and encourage more explicit explanation of metric selection. A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA framework, covering publications from 2016 to 2025. In total, 50 studies were identified and analyzed with respect to the evaluation metrics applied, with particular focus on relaxed boundaries and the distinction between online and offline models. The results show that accuracy, precision, and recall are the most frequently used metrics, followed by the jaccard index. Since around 2023, an increasing use of segment-based metrics can be observed, reflecting a growing emphasis on temporal dynamics. No significant differences in metric selection between online and offline approaches were identified. Furthermore, many studies do not provide explicit explanation for their choice of evaluation metrics. Instead, they often rely on commonly used metrics or practices adopted from previous work. Additionally, results obtained with relaxed boundaries tend to exhibit higher standard deviations compared to those without relaxed boundaries. Based on these findings, it is recommended to more explicitly align evaluation metrics with model objectives and to further investigate the distinction between online and offline settings. Adaptations of the

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceevaluationmetricsoffline modelsonline modelssurgical phase recognitionsystematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID42488379
PMCPMC13388889

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.