Meta-SurDiff: Classification Diffusion Model Optimized by Meta Learning is Reliable for Online Surgical Phase Recognition

Jirui Wu; Liming Wang; Long Tian; Xiaonan Liu; Xiyang Liu; Yufei Li; Zijun Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Meta-SurDiff: Classification Diffusion Model Optimized by Meta Learning is Reliable for Online Surgical Phase Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Meta-SurDiff, a meta-learning-optimized classification diffusion model, achieves state-of-the-art online surgical phase recognition on five datasets.

desk verdict Useful empirical combination with a real math error in the reverse posterior; the sampler as written does not match the forward process, so the uncertainty claims need a corrected derivation and code before the SOTA results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14181 v1 pith:NTSKTVNU submitted 2025-06-17 cs.CV

Yufei Li , Jirui Wu , Long Tian , Liming Wang , Xiaonan Liu , Zijun Liu , Xiyang Liu This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords onlinesurgicalphaserecognitionclassificationdiffusionmodelmeta-learningreweightingframe-leveluncertaintyestimationimbalanceddistributionvideoanalysispredictionintervalwidth

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Online surgical phase recognition faces two reliability problems that most models ignore: individual frames can be visually ambiguous, and surgical phases are highly unbalanced in how often they occur. The paper's thesis is that both problems are best treated by replacing point predictions with frame-level distribution estimation. Meta-SurDiff feeds coarse phase scores from any video backbone into a classification diffusion model whose reverse process produces a per-frame predictive distribution, and it trains that diffusion model with a meta-learned per-frame reweighting objective. On five surgical-video datasets, the paper reports the best results among the compared online methods on accuracy, precision, recall, and Jaccard metrics. It also reports that correct predictions come with much narrower prediction intervals than incorrect ones, a step toward letting a recognition system flag uncertain frames for human review.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the classification diffusion model, a conditional DDPM whose forward process interpolates between the label embedding and a coarse representation, $q(\mathbf{y}_t \mid \mathbf{y}_0, \mathbf{z}_i) = \mathcal{N}(\sqrt{\bar\alpha_t}\,\mathbf{y}_0 + (1-\sqrt{\bar\alpha_t})\,\mathbf{z}_i, (1-\bar\alpha_t)I)$, with the reverse update $\mathbf{y}_{t-1} = \gamma_0 \hat{\mathbf{y}}_0 + \gamma_1 \mathbf{y}_t + \gamma_2 \mathbf{z}_i + \sqrt{\gamma_3 \beta_t}\,\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ whose coefficients come from the posterior derivation in Eq. 9. Repeating that update over $T$ steps turns a coarse backbone score into a sampled phase distribution. The second mechanism is the meta-learning reweighting objective: a two-layer MLP meta-weight net computes a weight for each frame's loss and is updated by alternating meta-training and meta-testing steps (Eqs. 12-13), so the diffusion model is not dominated by majority phases. Together these two mechanisms are what the paper credits for the accuracy and uncertainty-calibration gains.

What would settle it

Evaluate Eqs. 7-9 numerically: for a fixed small timestep such as $t=1$, take $\mathbf{z}_i=0$ and $\beta_1=10^{-4}$, compute the posterior mean $q(\mathbf{y}_{t-1} \mid \mathbf{y}_t, \mathbf{y}_0, \mathbf{z}_i)$ directly from the forward transition in Eq. 5 and the marginal in Eq. 6, and compare it with Eq. 8. A mismatch in the $\mathbf{z}_i$ coefficient would show that Algorithm 2 does not sample the posterior of the paper's own forward process, and the corrected update could then be tested to see whether the reported gains survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a diffusion model can be repurposed from a generator into a calibrator for online phase recognition. Standard DDPM diffuses data to Gaussian noise and learns to reverse that corruption; Meta-SurDiff instead diffuses the ground-truth phase label embedding $\mathbf{y}_0$ toward a coarse phase representation $\mathbf{z}_i$ produced by a backbone, $q(\mathbf{y}_t \mid \mathbf{y}_{t-1}, \mathbf{z}_i) = \mathcal{N}(\sqrt{1-\beta_t}\,\mathbf{y}_{t-1} + (1-\sqrt{1-\beta_t})\,\mathbf{z}_i, \beta_t I)$, so the reverse process must recover a sharp label embedding from a noisy estimate of it. The learned reverse model generates a full predictive distribution over phases for each frame, and a meta-weight network assigns larger training weights to frames from minority phases. The paper reports new best accuracy/precision/recall/Jaccard results on Cholec80, AutoLaparo, M2Cai16, OphNet, and NurViD, and reports that correct predictions show much narrower prediction intervals than incorrect ones.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the algebra that converts the forward interpolation process into the closed-form reverse update used at test time; if that posterior derivation is incorrect, Algorithm 2's sampler does not implement the model the paper intends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Attaching the classification diffusion module to a different backbone (ConvNeXt+LSTM, ResNet, ViT, or X-CLIP) improves that backbone's online phase recognition, so the method works as a plugin rather than a from-scratch architecture.
The uncertainty estimates give an operational quality signal: instances whose paired t-test rejects the equality of the top two predicted probabilities are recognized more accurately, so a system could automatically accept those and route the rest to an expert.
Because the temporal encoder is an LSTM and the diffusion conditioner uses only current and past representations, the method preserves the online constraint and does not need future frames.
With DDIM acceleration to 100 diffusion steps, inference runs at 76 ms per frame with 21.44M parameters on Cholec80, which is compatible with real-time surgical monitoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same pattern—diffuse the label toward a coarse streaming prediction, reverse-sample to get a distribution, then reweight with a balanced meta-set—is not surgery-specific and could transfer to online action segmentation or real-time procedure monitoring in non-medical video.
The PIW/t-test split suggests a concrete deployment rule the paper leaves implicit: accept a prediction when the top-two probability gap is statistically significant and the interval is narrow, and flag the rest for human review.
An ablation that swaps the diffusion posterior for a simpler noise-calibrated sampler would isolate how much of the reported gain comes from the generative refinement versus the meta-reweighting objective and backbone fine-tuning.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The gist: this is a sensible plug-in idea - a CARD-style classification diffusion refiner conditioned on coarse phase logits, trained with a Meta-Weight-Net reweighting objective - tested on five surgical video datasets. That combination is new, and the uncertainty evaluation (PIW plus paired t-tests) is a practical step for a safety-relevant domain. The empirical gains over ConvNext+LSTM baselines are plausible and the ablation study lines up.

But there is a load-bearing math problem. The stress-test note is correct: Eq. 8-9 give gamma0 and gamma1 that match the standard DDPM posterior, but gamma2 is not 1-gamma0-gamma1. For beta1=0.1, beta2=0.2, the correct gamma2 is about 0.003, while the paper's formula gives something like 0.03 or 0.3 depending on how you read the ambiguous alpha notation. Since Algorithm 2 literally uses that gamma2 to inject a z-dependent shift, the sampler does not draw from the posterior of the forward process defined in Eq. 5-6. This is not a cosmetic typo: the paper's central claim is precise frame-level distribution estimation and calibrated uncertainty, and the described generative process does not deliver that. Without the corrected sampler or released code, the SOTA numbers cannot be attributed to the claimed diffusion model.

Everything else is softer. No code is public, OphNet and NurViD tables lack error bars, and the baseline coverage on those two datasets is thin. The meta-reweighting is not circular - the balanced meta set is an internal validation, fine - and the citations to CARD and Meta-Weight-Net are appropriate.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. The application is real, the components are known-good, and the math error, while central, looks fixable - provided the authors actually derive the right gamma2 and re-run the experiments. I would send it to review with instructions to demand a corrected posterior, the code, and complete experimental tables before anything is accepted. As written, though, the core uncertainty story does not hold up.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Meta-SurDiff, a classification diffusion model conditioned on coarse phase representations from a ConvNext+LSTM backbone, trained with a meta-learning reweighting objective intended to handle frame ambiguity and unbalanced phase distributions for online surgical phase recognition. The method is evaluated on Cholec80, AutoLaparo, M2Cai16, OphNet, and NurViD with accuracy, precision, recall, Jaccard, and uncertainty metrics such as prediction interval width and a paired two-sample t-test. The abstract and conclusion claim new state-of-the-art performance and reliable frame-level uncertainty estimation.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a useful plug-in module for uncertainty-aware online surgical phase recognition, and the idea of conditioning the diffusion endpoint on a coarse prediction is reasonable. The meta-reweighting component largely follows Meta-Weight-Net, but the combination with a classification diffusion model is nonstandard. The breadth of datasets and the use of uncertainty metrics are positive features. However, the paper does not release code, and the core arithmetic of the diffusion posterior is incorrect, so the reported results cannot be attributed to the described method; in addition, the evaluation on two of the five datasets is not against current state-of-the-art baselines.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (9) and Algorithm 2] The coefficient gamma_2 in the reverse posterior mean is inconsistent with the forward process in Eqs. (5)-(6). With a = sqrt(alpha_t) and b = sqrt(alpha_{t-1}), where alpha_t denotes the cumulative product, the correct coefficient of z in the posterior mean is gamma_2 = (1-a)(1-b)/(1+ab), not the printed 1 + ((sqrt(alpha_t)-1)(sqrt(alpha_t)+sqrt(alpha_{t-1})))/(1 - alpha_t). A concrete check with beta_1=0.1 and beta_2=0.2 gives correct gamma_2 approximately 0.003, whereas Eq. (9) yields approximately 0.305. Because Algorithm 2 uses this gamma_2 in the update y_{t-1} = gamma_0 y_hat_0 + gamma_1 y_t + gamma_2 z + sqrt(gamma_3 beta_t) epsilon, the sampler as written does not draw from the posterior of the stated forward process.
[Algorithm 2] The denoising reconstruction step y_hat_0 = (1 / alpha_t) (y_t - (1 - sqrt(alpha_t)) z - sqrt(1 - alpha_t) epsilon_theta) is inconsistent with the forward marginal in Eq. (6). From Eq. (6), the correct inversion is y_hat_0 = (y_t - (1 - sqrt(alpha_t)) z - sqrt(1 - alpha_t) epsilon_theta) / sqrt(alpha_t), i.e., division by sqrt(alpha_t) rather than by alpha_t. As written, this line of Algorithm 2 is arithmetically incorrect and compounds the error in the gamma_2 coefficient.
[Section 4.2.1, Tables 5 and 6] The claim of state-of-the-art performance on OphNet and NurViD is not supported by the comparisons shown. Table 5 compares only against X-CLIP16 and X-CLIP32, and Table 6 only against SlowFast, C3D, and I3D, which are not current surgical-phase-recognition baselines for these benchmarks. Additionally, Table 6 reports 'All(162)' while Table 1 states that NurViD has 177 phases, and Appendix A says OphNet has 102 phases while Table 1 says 96; these inconsistencies need to be resolved and the results compared with the benchmarks' own published methods and metrics.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (7)] The expression for B appears to contain a typo: the coefficient multiplying y_t should be sqrt(alpha_t)/beta_t, not sqrt(alpha_{t-1})/beta_t, based on the standard Gaussian product and the subsequent gamma_1 in Eq. (9).
[Section 3.1, Eqs. (5)-(9)] The symbol alpha_t is used both for the per-step noise schedule (alpha_t = 1 - beta_t) and for the cumulative product, making the derivation hard to check; please use separate notation such as alpha_t and alpha_bar_t consistently.
[Table 1 and Appendix A] Table 1 lists 'MeCai16' instead of 'M2Cai16', and the OphNet duration '5min37s' conflicts with Appendix A's description of 284.8 hours for the full dataset and 32 seconds for trimmed videos; please reconcile these values.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (12)] The notation 'at wt' for the meta-loss gradient is unclear, since the meta-loss is evaluated at the updated classifier parameters, not at wt; please clarify the point of evaluation in the gradient computation.
[Section 4.2.1 and Appendix B] The text says 'we select the diffusion timestep to be T=1000' and later reduces to T=100 with DDIM, while Appendix B says 'we set the number of timesteps as T=100'; please unify these statements to distinguish training diffusion steps from inference sampling steps.
[Appendix C, PTST] The description of the paired two-sample t-test states that the null hypothesis is 'the top two maximum predicted values are the same,' which is not a standard t-test formulation; please define the paired differences and the null hypothesis explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Meta-SurDiff's diffusion model and meta-reweighting are trained against ground-truth labels and external benchmarks, not derived from their own outputs.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain of Meta-SurDiff. The forward and reverse diffusion processes (Eqs. 5-9) form a conditional DDPM with the coarse representation z_i as the endpoint; the posterior coefficients are claimed to follow from the Gaussian product in Eq. 7. Although the numerical correctness of gamma2 is questionable, that is a correctness risk rather than a circularity, because the stated coefficients are not fitted to the quantity they later predict. The training objective (Eqs. 10-13) uses a noise-prediction loss against ground-truth label embeddings, and the meta-weight net is trained on a balanced meta set downsampled from the training data; this is an internal reweighting mechanism and does not constitute predicting a fitted input. The uncertainty evaluation (Table 13, Appendix C) computes PIW and PTST from the model's own stochastic samples; this is a self-assessment of the model's output distribution, and the claim that correct predictions have narrower intervals is an empirical property that could fail, so it is not circular by construction. No load-bearing self-citations appear in the paper; references to DDPM, CARD, and Meta-Weight-Net are external prior work. The state-of-the-art claims are benchmark comparisons on held-out test sets. Thus no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by definition or by fitted-value renaming.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on two external frameworks: CARD-style conditional diffusion and Meta-Weight-Net reweighting. The forward process is a modeling assumption; the reverse posterior is claimed as a derivation but is numerically incorrect. The meta-learning objective assumes a balanced meta-set that is not fully specified. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Noise schedule beta_t = beta_1=1e-4, beta_T=0.02 (linear)
DDPM-style schedule chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
Diffusion timesteps T = T=100 in Appendix B; T=1000 with DDIM 100 in Section 4.2.1
The paper gives conflicting values and shows performance varies with T (Table 9).
CE loss scaling 1/L = 1/L
Ad hoc balance between noise-prediction and cross-entropy losses in Eq. 11.
Meta-dataset size
The balanced meta set is downsampled from training data; the exact size is not stated and Fig. 3 shows performance varies with it.
Meta-learning step sizes alpha and beta = alpha=1e-5, beta=1e-3
Chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The forward diffusion process q(y_t|y_0,z) = N(sqrt(alpha_bar_t) y_0 + (1-sqrt(alpha_bar_t)) z, (1-alpha_bar_t) I) holds as stated in Eq. 5-6.
This is a modeling choice borrowed from CARD [16], not derived in the paper.
ad hoc to paper The posterior mean in Eq. 8-9 is correct and Algorithm 2 samples from that posterior.
We find the gamma2 coefficient inconsistent with the forward process; this assumption is load-bearing for the 'precise distribution estimation' claim.
domain assumption A balanced meta-dataset downsampled from the training set provides an unbiased signal for learning frame weights.
Inherited from learning-to-reweight literature [15,39]; no proof that the downsampling preserves the test distribution.
domain assumption The meta-weight net h(·,w) and bi-level objective do not overfit the small meta set.
The meta set is small; the paper does not provide regularization analysis.
domain assumption LSTM-based feature extractor avoids future information leakage in online inference.
True by causality of LSTM, but the diffusion model processes each frame independently and the paper does not formally prove the whole system is online-safe.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meta-SurDiff: Classification Diffusion Model Optimized by Meta Learning is Reliable for Online Surgical Phase Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTSKTVNU

@misc{pith2026250614181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meta-SurDiff: Classification Diffusion Model Optimized by Meta Learning is Reliable for Online Surgical Phase Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTSKTVNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14181}
}

read the original abstract

Online surgical phase recognition has drawn great attention most recently due to its potential downstream applications closely related to human life and health. Despite deep models have made significant advances in capturing the discriminative long-term dependency of surgical videos to achieve improved recognition, they rarely account for exploring and modeling the uncertainty in surgical videos, which should be crucial for reliable online surgical phase recognition. We categorize the sources of uncertainty into two types, frame ambiguity in videos and unbalanced distribution among surgical phases, which are inevitable in surgical videos. To address this pivot issue, we introduce a meta-learning-optimized classification diffusion model (Meta-SurDiff), to take full advantage of the deep generative model and meta-learning in achieving precise frame-level distribution estimation for reliable online surgical phase recognition. For coarse recognition caused by ambiguous video frames, we employ a classification diffusion model to assess the confidence of recognition results at a finer-grained frame-level instance. For coarse recognition caused by unbalanced phase distribution, we use a meta-learning based objective to learn the diffusion model, thus enhancing the robustness of classification boundaries for different surgical phases.We establish effectiveness of Meta-SurDiff in online surgical phase recognition through extensive experiments on five widely used datasets using more than four practical metrics. The datasets include Cholec80, AutoLaparo, M2Cai16, OphNet, and NurViD, where OphNet comes from ophthalmic surgeries, NurViD is the daily care dataset, while the others come from laparoscopic surgeries. We will release the code upon acceptance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14181 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The illustration of unbalanced phase distribution and frame ambiguity on AutoLaparo dataset. i) Unbalanced phase distribution: The ribbon charts tell us that the frame distribution across different phases (best viewed in colors) is highly unbalanced. ii) Frame ambiguity: The blue box inside the black box indicates the target organ and tool that should be focused on while the blue box outside the black box represent… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of Meta-SurDiff, it consists of a classification diffusion model and a re-weighting based meta-learning objective. Top: We employ a simple yet effective backbone fϕ(·), ConvNext + LSTM, to capture coarse phase representations fϕ(x i ) for the i-th video frame, which serves as conditional inputs of the classification diffusion model. Bottom: the proposed classification diffusion model that utilizes fϕ(x i … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Performance changes with the number of training frames in Cholec80 dataset. Top: Results of ignoring training labels. Bottom: Results of ignoring training frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) and (b) are ribbon diagrams of ground truth labels, baseline method, and our proposed Meta-SurDiff from the top to the bottom under Cholec80 and M2Cai16 datasets. (c) The learned weight vectors on Cholec80 dataset, where x-axis is the frames from the current mini-b…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Showcases of surgical video frame for the five datasets. Cholec80, M2Cai16, and AutoLaparo are laparoscopic surgery video datasets, with Cholec80 and M2Cai16 focusing on cholecystectomy, while AutoLaparo is centered on hysterectomy. OphNet is a large-scale dataset for…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Pattern recognition and machine learning.Springer google schola, 2:1122–1128, 2006

Christopher M Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine learning.Springer google schola, 2:1122–1128, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Context awareness in health care: A review

Nathalie Bricon-Souf and Conrad R Newman. Context awareness in health care: A review. international journal of medical informatics, 76(1):2–12, 2007

work page 2007
[3]

Sr-mamba: Effective surgical phase recognition with state space model, 2024

Rui Cao, Jiangliu Wang, and Yun-Hui Liu. Sr-mamba: Effective surgical phase recognition with state space model, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08333

arXiv 2024
[4]

Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset, 2018

Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset, 2018. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07750

arXiv 2018
[5]

Spatio-temporal causal transformer for multi-grained surgical phase recognition

Hua-Bin Chen, Zhen Li, Pan Fu, Zhen-Liang Ni, and Gui-Bin Bian. Spatio-temporal causal transformer for multi-grained surgical phase recognition. In2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pages 1663–1666, 2022. doi: 10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871004

arXiv 2022
[6]

Surgplan++: Universal surgical phase localization network for online and offline inference, 2025

Zhen Chen, Xingjian Luo, Jinlin Wu, Long Bai, Zhen Lei, Hongliang Ren, Sebastien Ourselin, and Hongbin Liu. Surgplan++: Universal surgical phase localization network for online and offline inference, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12467

arXiv 2025
[7]

Tecno: Surgical phase recognition with multi-stage temporal convolutional networks

Tobias Czempiel, Magdalini Paschali, Matthias Keicher, Walter Simson, Hubertus Feuss- ner, Seong Tae Kim, and Nassir Navab. Tecno: Surgical phase recognition with multi-stage temporal convolutional networks. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, ...

work page 2020
[8]

Springer International Publishing, 2021

Tobias Czempiel, Magdalini Paschali, Daniel Ostler, Seong Tae Kim, Benjamin Busam, and Nassir Navab.OperA: Attention-Regularized Transformers for Surgical Phase Recog- nition, page 604–614. Springer International Publishing, 2021. ISBN 9783030872021

work page 2021

Show all 54 references

[9]

Automatic data-driven real-time segmentation and recognition of surgical workflow

Olga Dergachyova, David Bouget, Arnaud Huaulmé, Xavier Morandi, and Pierre Jan- nin. Automatic data-driven real-time segmentation and recognition of surgical workflow. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 11:1081–1089, 2016

2016
[10]

Exploring segment-level semantics for online phase recog- nition from surgical videos.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(11):3309–3319, 2022

Xinpeng Ding and Xiaomeng Li. Exploring segment-level semantics for online phase recog- nition from surgical videos.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(11):3309–3319, 2022

2022
[11]

Contextual dropout: An efficient sample-dependent dropout module.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04181, 2021

Xinjie Fan, Shujian Zhang, Korawat Tanwisuth, Xiaoning Qian, and Mingyuan Zhou. Contextual dropout: An efficient sample-dependent dropout module.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04181, 2021

2021 arXiv
[12]

Slowfast networks for video recognition, 2019

Christoph Feichtenhofer, Haoqi Fan, Jitendra Malik, and Kaiming He. Slowfast networks for video recognition, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1812.03982

2019 arXiv
[13]

Xiaojing Feng, Xiaodong Zhang, Xiaojun Shi, Li Li, and Shaopeng Wang. St-itef: Spatio- temporal intraoperative task estimating framework to recognize surgical phase and predict instrument path based on multi-object tracking in keratoplasty.Medical Image Analysis, 91:103026, 20...

2024
[14]

Trans-svnet: Accurate phase recognition from surgical videos via hybrid embedding aggregation trans- former

Xiaojie Gao, Yueming Jin, Yonghao Long, Qi Dou, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Trans-svnet: Accurate phase recognition from surgical videos via hybrid embedding aggregation trans- former. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 19 24th International Conf...

2021
[15]

Learning to re- weight examples with optimal transport for imbalanced classification.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25517–25530, 2022

Dandan Guo, Zhuo Li, He Zhao, Mingyuan Zhou, Hongyuan Zha, et al. Learning to re- weight examples with optimal transport for imbalanced classification.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25517–25530, 2022

2022
[16]

Card: Classification and regression diffusion models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18100–18115, 2022

Xizewen Han, Huangjie Zheng, and Mingyuan Zhou. Card: Classification and regression diffusion models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18100–18115, 2022

2022
[17]

Deep residual learning for image recognition

Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

2016
[18]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

2020
[19]

Nurvid: A large expert-level video database for nursing proce- dure activity understanding, 2023

Ming Hu, Lin Wang, Siyuan Yan, Don Ma, Qingli Ren, Peng Xia, Wei Feng, Peibo Duan, Lie Ju, and Zongyuan Ge. Nurvid: A large expert-level video database for nursing proce- dure activity understanding, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13347

2023 arXiv
[20]

Ophnet: A large-scale video benchmark for ophthalmic surgical workflow understanding, 2024

Ming Hu, Peng Xia, Lin Wang, Siyuan Yan, Feilong Tang, Zhongxing Xu, Yimin Luo, Kaimin Song, Jurgen Leitner, Xuelian Cheng, Jun Cheng, Chi Liu, Kaijing Zhou, and Zongyuan Ge. Ophnet: A large-scale video benchmark for ophthalmic surgical workflow understanding, 2024. URLhttps:/...

2024 arXiv
[21]

Sv-rcnet: workflow recognition from surgical videos using recurrent convolutional network.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 37(5):1114–1126, 2017

Yueming Jin, Qi Dou, Hao Chen, Lequan Yu, Jing Qin, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Sv-rcnet: workflow recognition from surgical videos using recurrent convolutional network.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 37(5):1114–1126, 2017

2017
[22]

Sv-rcnet: Workflow recognition from surgical videos using recurrent convolutional network.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 37(5):1114–1126, 2018

Yueming Jin, Qi Dou, Hao Chen, Lequan Yu, Jing Qin, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Sv-rcnet: Workflow recognition from surgical videos using recurrent convolutional network.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 37(5):1114–1126, 2018. doi: 10.1109/ TMI.2017.2787657

2018
[23]

Multi-task recurrent convolutional network with correlation loss for surgi- cal video analysis.Medical Image Analysis, 59:101572, 2020

Yueming Jin, Huaxia Li, Qi Dou, Hao Chen, Jing Qin, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng- Ann Heng. Multi-task recurrent convolutional network with correlation loss for surgi- cal video analysis.Medical Image Analysis, 59:101572, 2020. ISSN 1361-8415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.20...

2020
[24]

Temporal memory relation network for workflow recognition from surgical video.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40(7):1911–1923, 2021

Yueming Jin, Yonghao Long, Cheng Chen, Zixu Zhao, Qi Dou, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Temporal memory relation network for workflow recognition from surgical video.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40(7):1911–1923, 2021

1911
[25]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

2014 arXiv
[26]

Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2013

Diederik P Kingma, Max Welling, et al. Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2013

2013
[27]

Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks.Communications of the ACM, 60(6):84–90, 2017

Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks.Communications of the ACM, 60(6):84–90, 2017

2017
[28]

Towards unified surgical skill assessment

Daochang Liu, Qiyue Li, Tingting Jiang, Yizhou Wang, Rulin Miao, Fei Shan, and Ziyu Li. Towards unified surgical skill assessment. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9522–9531, 2021

2021
[29]

Skit: a fast key information video transformer for online surgical phase recognition

Yang Liu, Jiayu Huo, Jingjing Peng, Rachel Sparks, Prokar Dasgupta, Alejandro Grana- dos, and Sebastien Ourselin. Skit: a fast key information video transformer for online surgical phase recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pa...

2023
[30]

Garcia-Peraza-Herrera, Tom Vercauteren, Prokar Das- gupta, Alejandro Granados, and Sébastien Ourselin

Yang Liu, Maxence Boels, Luis C. Garcia-Peraza-Herrera, Tom Vercauteren, Prokar Das- gupta, Alejandro Granados, and Sébastien Ourselin. Lovit: Long video transformer for surgical phase recognition.Medical Image Analysis, 99:103366, 2025. ISSN 1361-8415. doi: https://doi.org/10...

2025
[31]

A convnet for the 2020s

Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11976–11986, 2022

2022
[32]

Surgical process modeling.Innovative surgical sciences, 2(3):123–137, 2017

Thomas Neumuth. Surgical process modeling.Innovative surgical sciences, 2(3):123–137, 2017

2017
[33]

Expanding language-image pretrained models for general video recognition, 2022

Bolin Ni, Houwen Peng, Minghao Chen, Songyang Zhang, Gaofeng Meng, Jianlong Fu, Shiming Xiang, and Haibin Ling. Expanding language-image pretrained models for general video recognition, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02816

2022 arXiv
[34]

Real-time task recognition in cataract surgery videos using adaptive spatiotemporal polynomials.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 34(4):877–887, 2014

Gwenole Quellec, Mathieu Lamard, Beatrice Cochener, and Guy Cazuguel. Real-time task recognition in cataract surgery videos using adaptive spatiotemporal polynomials.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 34(4):877–887, 2014

2014
[35]

On the pitfalls of batch normalization for end-to-end video learning: A study on surgical workflow analysis.Medical Image Analysis, page 103126, 2024

Dominik Rivoir, Isabel Funke, and Stefanie Speidel. On the pitfalls of batch normalization for end-to-end video learning: A study on surgical workflow analysis.Medical Image Analysis, page 103126, 2024

2024
[36]

High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Om- mer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

2022
[37]

Non-autoregressive conditional diffusion models for time series prediction

Lifeng Shen and James Kwok. Non-autoregressive conditional diffusion models for time series prediction. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31016–31029. PMLR, 2023

2023
[38]

Semi-supervised learning with progressive unlabeled data excavation for label-efficient surgical workflow recogni- tion.Medical Image Analysis, 73:102158, 2021

Xueying Shi, Yueming Jin, Qi Dou, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Semi-supervised learning with progressive unlabeled data excavation for label-efficient surgical workflow recogni- tion.Medical Image Analysis, 73:102158, 2021. ISSN 1361-8415. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.media.2021.102...

2021
[39]

Meta-weight-net: Learning an explicit mapping for sample weighting.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

Jun Shu, Qi Xie, Lixuan Yi, Qian Zhao, Sanping Zhou, Zongben Xu, and Deyu Meng. Meta-weight-net: Learning an explicit mapping for sample weighting.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

2019
[40]

Denoising diffusion implicit models

Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. ICLR, 2021

2021
[41]

Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

2020
[42]

Last: Latent space-constrained transformers for automatic surgical phase recognition and tool presence detection.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2023

Rong Tao, Xiaoyang Zou, and Guoyan Zheng. Last: Latent space-constrained transformers for automatic surgical phase recognition and tool presence detection.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2023

2023
[43]

Learning spatiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks, 2015

Du Tran, Lubomir Bourdev, Rob Fergus, Lorenzo Torresani, and Manohar Paluri. Learning spatiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks, 2015. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1412.0767

2015 arXiv
[44]

Miccai modeling and monitoring of computer assisted interventions challenge

Andru P Twinanda, Sherif Shehata, Didier Mutter, J Marescaux, M De Mathelin, and N Padoy. Miccai modeling and monitoring of computer assisted interventions challenge. 21 InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI, 2016

2016
[45]

Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 36(1):86–97, 2016

Andru P Twinanda, Sherif Shehata, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux, Michel De Mathe- lin, and Nicolas Padoy. Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 36(1):86–97, 2016

2016
[46]

Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

2017
[47]

Autolaparo: A new dataset of integrated multi-tasks for image-guided surgical automation in laparoscopic hysterectomy

Ziyi Wang, Bo Lu, Yonghao Long, Fangxun Zhong, Tak-Hong Cheung, Qi Dou, and Yunhui Liu. Autolaparo: A new dataset of integrated multi-tasks for image-guided surgical automation in laparoscopic hysterectomy. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Ass...

2022
[48]

Hard frame detection and online mapping for surgical phase recognition, 2019

Fangqiu Yi and Tingting Jiang. Hard frame detection and online mapping for surgical phase recognition, 2019

2019
[49]

Hard frame detection and online mapping for surgical phase recognition

Fangqiu Yi and Tingting Jiang. Hard frame detection and online mapping for surgical phase recognition. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part V 22, pages ...

2019
[50]

Not end-to-end: Explore multi-stage architecture for online surgical phase recognition

Fangqiu Yi, Yanfeng Yang, and Tingting Jiang. Not end-to-end: Explore multi-stage architecture for online surgical phase recognition. InProceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2613–2628, 2022

2022
[51]

Cascade multi-level transformer network for surgical workflow analysis.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2023

Wenxi Yue, Hongen Liao, Yong Xia, Vincent Lam, Jiebo Luo, and Zhiyong Wang. Cascade multi-level transformer network for surgical workflow analysis.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2023

2023
[52]

Sprmamba: Surgical phase recognition for endoscopic submucosal dissection with mamba, 2024

Xiangning Zhang, Jinnan Chen, Qingwei Zhang, Chengfeng Zhou, Zhengjie Zhang, Xiaobo Li, and Dahong Qian. Sprmamba: Surgical phase recognition for endoscopic submucosal dissection with mamba, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12108

2024 arXiv
[53]

Yanyi Zhang, Ivan Marsic, and Randall S. Burd. Real-time medical phase recognition using long-term video understanding and progress gate method.Medical Image Analysis, 74:102224, 2021. ISSN 1361-8415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102224. URL https://www.sciencedir...

2021
[54]

Real-time online video detection with temporal smoothing transformers

Yue Zhao and Philipp Krähenbühl. Real-time online video detection with temporal smoothing transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 485–502. Springer, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Pattern recognition and machine learning.Springer google schola, 2:1122–1128, 2006

Christopher M Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine learning.Springer google schola, 2:1122–1128, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Context awareness in health care: A review

Nathalie Bricon-Souf and Conrad R Newman. Context awareness in health care: A review. international journal of medical informatics, 76(1):2–12, 2007

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Sr-mamba: Effective surgical phase recognition with state space model, 2024

Rui Cao, Jiangliu Wang, and Yun-Hui Liu. Sr-mamba: Effective surgical phase recognition with state space model, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08333

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset, 2018

Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset, 2018. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07750

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Spatio-temporal causal transformer for multi-grained surgical phase recognition

Hua-Bin Chen, Zhen Li, Pan Fu, Zhen-Liang Ni, and Gui-Bin Bian. Spatio-temporal causal transformer for multi-grained surgical phase recognition. In2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pages 1663–1666, 2022. doi: 10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871004

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

Surgplan++: Universal surgical phase localization network for online and offline inference, 2025

Zhen Chen, Xingjian Luo, Jinlin Wu, Long Bai, Zhen Lei, Hongliang Ren, Sebastien Ourselin, and Hongbin Liu. Surgplan++: Universal surgical phase localization network for online and offline inference, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12467

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Tecno: Surgical phase recognition with multi-stage temporal convolutional networks

Tobias Czempiel, Magdalini Paschali, Matthias Keicher, Walter Simson, Hubertus Feuss- ner, Seong Tae Kim, and Nassir Navab. Tecno: Surgical phase recognition with multi-stage temporal convolutional networks. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, ...

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Springer International Publishing, 2021

Tobias Czempiel, Magdalini Paschali, Daniel Ostler, Seong Tae Kim, Benjamin Busam, and Nassir Navab.OperA: Attention-Regularized Transformers for Surgical Phase Recog- nition, page 604–614. Springer International Publishing, 2021. ISBN 9783030872021

work page 2021