ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
AI enhanced surgeons' faster responses to intraoperative bleeding in laparoscopic surgery: a preclinical randomized controlled trial.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI) model for real-time detection and tracking of intraoperative bleeding sites during laparoscopic surgery, and to evaluate whether AI assistance improves surgeons' bleeding‑identification performance.
methodsFrom January to September 2023, laparoscopic surgical videos were retrospectively collected from 20 medical centers in China. Senior surgeons identified bleeding events, extracted relevant video clips, and manually annotated bleeding frames to train the AI model. Model performance was evaluated using the F1-score, mean absolute error (MAE), and mean distance error (MDE). A preclinical randomized controlled trial was subsequently conducted. Eligible surgeons were randomly assigned to the AI-assisted (experimental) group or the control group. The primary outcome was reaction time, defined as the time elapsed from the onset of bleeding to the participant's first successful click on the bleeding site.
resultsA total of 257 laparoscopic surgical videos were collected from 20 medical centers. The training, validation, and test sets comprised 145 (56.42%), 55 (21.40%), and 57 (22.18%) videos, respectively. The model achieved an F1-score of 0.860 (95% CI, 0.838-0.878). The MAE was 3.315 (95% CI, 3.051-3.614), and the MDE was 0.087 (95% CI, 0.086-0.088). A total of 77 surgeons were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n = 38) and the control group (n = 39). Compared with the control group, the experimental group demonstrated a significantly shorter reaction time (2.53 s vs. 3.23 s, P < 0.001) and a lower negative emotion score (1.68 vs. 2.95, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe AI model achieves high accuracy in real‑time detection and tracking of bleeding‑site targets within laparoscopic surgical videos. Furthermore, AI‑assisted support significantly shortens surgeons' reaction time for bleeding‑site identification and reduces their negative emotional burden when confronted with bleeding events.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2600118185).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42869971What 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.