ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Analysis and mitigation of equipment-induced shortcuts in AI models for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning models have seen a lot of success in medical image segmentation domain. However, one of the challenges that they face are confounders or shortcuts: spurious correlations or biases in the training data that affect the resulting models. One example of such confounders for surgical machine learning is the setup of surgical equipment, including tools and lighting. Using the task of identification of safe and dangerous zones of dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy images and videos as a use-case, we inspect two equipment-induced biases: the location of surgical tools in the field of view and the direction of lighting, both of which are tightly related to the region of interest. We propose methods for evaluating the severity of these biases based on measurements of model consistency under real or simulated exposure to these shortcuts, and augmentation-based methods for mitigating them. We show that our tool bias mitigations based on pasting tool images in random locations improve the models' prediction consistency under tool movements by 9 percentage points in the most inconsistent cases, and by 4 percentage points on average. Our lighting bias mitigations based on simulated lighting adjustments help reduce fraction of pixels originally predicted as belonging to the dangerous zone that may flip to safe under light changes from 5% to 1.5%, without compromising segmentation quality.
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.