Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 52 references

Expert Consensus on Criteria for the Automated Assessment of Laparoscopic Camera Navigation

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A taxonomy of 14 camera navigation aspects plus surgeon survey yields a matrix of targets for automated assessment.

desk verdict The paper delivers a 14-aspect taxonomy and an importance-readiness matrix for laparoscopic camera navigation assessment, backed by a 23-surgeon survey, but the small uncharacterized sample and author-only CV judgments keep it from being a solid foundation. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.23131 v1 pith:HMIYKO36 submitted 2026-06-22 cs.CV

Amir Ebrahimzadeh , Nazila Esmaeili , Michael Ghadimi , Jannis Hagenah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords laparoscopiccameranavigationautomatedskillassessmentcomputervisionsurgicaltrainingexpertsurveytaxonomyclinicalprioritiesreadinessmatrix
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

The paper creates a taxonomy of 14 aspects of laparoscopic camera navigation organized into five categories: Framing & Composition, Visibility & Clarity, Orientation & Stability, Motion & Dynamics, and Safety & Awareness. Practicing surgeons rated the clinical importance of each aspect on a Likert scale and identified the five most critical ones, with field of view, focus, and centering emerging as top priorities. The authors then map these ratings against current computer vision capabilities to judge which aspects are technologically ready for automatic measurement. The resulting matrix highlights aspects that are both clinically important and feasible to automate now. This produces a concrete set of priorities for building scalable, objective tools that replace manual rating in surgical training.

What carries the argument

The Clinical Importance vs. CV Technological Readiness matrix, which positions each of the 14 aspects according to surgeon importance scores and current computer vision feasibility to flag immediate development targets.

What would settle it

A larger survey of laparoscopic surgeons that produces substantially different importance rankings for the 14 aspects, or a demonstration that existing computer vision methods cannot reliably quantify the aspects the matrix labels as ready.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a foundational framework for quantifying laparoscopic camera navigation skills by first defining a detailed taxonomy of 14 aspects, then using a survey of 23 surgeons to rate their clinical relevance, and finally overlaying an assessment of computer vision state-of-the-art readiness; the resulting Clinical Importance versus CV Technological Readiness matrix identifies high-priority targets for automated assessment that align surgeon priorities with existing technical capabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The 23-surgeon survey responses accurately capture the clinical priorities of the broader laparoscopic surgery community, and the authors' assessment of current computer vision state-of-the-art correctly identifies which of the 14 aspects are technologically ready to measure automatically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Foundational aspects such as field of view, focus, and centering become the first targets for automated measurement systems.
  • Manual rating systems can be supplemented or replaced by immediate, standardized, scalable metrics.
  • Development of AI-driven assistance tools can focus on the skills surgeons value most rather than on arbitrary technical possibilities.
  • The framework supports faster training of surgical assistants and potential gains in operating-room safety and efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The matrix could be reused or adapted as a template for setting automation priorities in other areas of surgical skill assessment.
  • Adoption of the taxonomy might encourage consistent language and metrics across different training programs or institutions.
  • Real-world validation would require comparing automated scores on the high-priority aspects against both expert manual ratings and downstream measures such as procedure time or error rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a taxonomy of 14 aspects of laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) grouped into Framing & Composition, Visibility & Clarity, Orientation & Stability, Motion & Dynamics, and Safety & Awareness. It reports a survey of 23 practicing surgeons who rated each aspect on a 5-point Likert scale and selected the five most critical skills, then constructs a Clinical Importance vs. CV Technological Readiness matrix that flags high-priority targets for automated assessment based on author judgments of current computer-vision state-of-the-art.

Significance. If the survey responses are representative of the broader surgical community and the CV-readiness judgments are reproducible, the resulting matrix supplies a concrete, clinically grounded prioritization for developing automated LCN assessment tools. The work is primarily a consensus-gathering and synthesis exercise rather than a new algorithmic contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (survey design and participant section): the manuscript provides no information on how the 23 surgeons were recruited, what the response rate was, or any stratification by experience level, institution type, or geographic region. Because the clinical-importance column of the matrix rests entirely on these Likert ratings and top-5 selections, the absence of sampling details makes it impossible to assess whether the reported priorities generalize.
  2. [Results] Results / matrix construction: the CV Technological Readiness column is presented as an author judgment of current SoTA without per-aspect citations or external validation. If the readiness assessments are not independently verifiable, the identification of the “high-priority quadrant” cannot be reproduced or defended.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the work “establishes a foundational framework” is stronger than the evidence supplied; the abstract should instead describe the output as a consensus-derived prioritization matrix.
  2. [Taxonomy section] Table or figure presenting the 14 aspects: ensure each aspect is accompanied by a concise operational definition so that future CV implementations can be compared against the same criteria.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important issues regarding transparency and reproducibility. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (survey design and participant section): the manuscript provides no information on how the 23 surgeons were recruited, what the response rate was, or any stratification by experience level, institution type, or geographic region. Because the clinical-importance column of the matrix rests entirely on these Likert ratings and top-5 selections, the absence of sampling details makes it impossible to assess whether the reported priorities generalize.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript omitted key details on participant recruitment. The survey was distributed as a convenience sample via professional networks and laparoscopic surgery societies; response rate was not tracked due to the distribution method, and no formal stratification was applied. We will revise the Methods section to describe the recruitment process explicitly and add a limitations paragraph discussing implications for generalizability of the clinical importance ratings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / matrix construction: the CV Technological Readiness column is presented as an author judgment of current SoTA without per-aspect citations or external validation. If the readiness assessments are not independently verifiable, the identification of the “high-priority quadrant” cannot be reproduced or defended.

    Authors: We concur that the CV readiness judgments, while grounded in a review of the computer vision literature, lack explicit per-aspect citations in the presented matrix, limiting independent verification. We will revise the manuscript to include supporting references for each aspect's readiness assessment, either as inline citations or in an expanded supplementary table, to improve reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; framework derived from external survey and literature review

full rationale

The paper develops its taxonomy of 14 LCN aspects and the Clinical Importance vs. CV Readiness matrix directly from a survey of 23 surgeons (Likert ratings and top-5 selections) plus author review of existing CV SoTA literature. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations are present. The central claims rest on these external inputs rather than reducing to the paper's own outputs by construction, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained non-circular analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, invented entities, or mathematical axioms. It rests on two domain assumptions about the validity of surgeon ratings and the accuracy of the authors' CV readiness judgments.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Ratings from 23 practicing laparoscopic surgeons on a 5-point Likert scale accurately reflect the clinical importance of each camera-navigation aspect for the wider surgical community.
    This assumption is required to convert survey results into the prioritization matrix.
  • domain assumption The authors' evaluation of current computer-vision state-of-the-art correctly classifies which of the 14 aspects are technologically ready for automated measurement.
    This assumption underpins the placement of aspects on the readiness axis of the matrix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expert Consensus on Criteria for the Automated Assessment of Laparoscopic Camera Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMIYKO36

@misc{pith2026260623131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expert Consensus on Criteria for the Automated Assessment of Laparoscopic Camera Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMIYKO36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.23131}
}
read the original abstract

Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) is a critical skill, yet its current assessment typically relies on manual rating systems which are time-consuming and difficult to scale. Automated feedback could significantly enhance surgical training by providing immediate, standardized metrics. This study aims to define, clinically evaluate the relevance, and establish the technical readiness of a set of approaches for LCN assessment. Methods: We developed a detailed taxonomy of 14 key aspects of camera navigation, categorized into Framing & Composition, Visibility & Clarity, Orientation & Stability, Motion & Dynamics, and Safety & Awareness. For each aspect, we assessed the technological readiness of automated measurement based on the current state of the art (SoTA) in computer vision (CV). To establish clinical relevance, we designed a survey for practicing laparoscopic surgeons to rate the importance of each aspect on a 5-point Likert scale and to select the five most critical skills. Results: 23 surgeons participated in the survey. Foundational aspects like Field of View, Focus and Centering were rated as most important by surgeons. We present a "Clinical Importance vs. CV Technological Readiness" matrix, identifying high-priority targets for development--aspects that are both clinically crucial and technologically ready to measure. Conclusion: This work establishes a foundational framework for quantifying LCN skills. By aligning surgeon priorities with CV capabilities, we provide a clear roadmap for automatic skill assessment. This foundation enables the development of AI-driven assistance tools that can accelerate the learning curve for surgical assistants and potentially improve surgical safety and efficiency.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akbari, M

    M. Akbari, M. Mohrekesh, K. Najariani, N. Karimi, S. Samavi, and S. Soroushmehr, Adaptive specular reflection detection and in- painting in colonoscopy video frames, 2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2018, 3134–3138,

    2018

  2. [2]

    Ali et al., An objective comparison of detection and seg- mentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy , Scien- tific Reports 10 (2020), no

    S. Ali et al., An objective comparison of detection and seg- mentation algorithms for artefacts in clinical endoscopy , Scien- tific Reports 10 (2020), no. 1, 2748. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-020-59413-5

    2020

  3. [3]

    S. Ali, F. Zhou, A. Bailey, B. Braden, J. E. East, X. Lu, and J. Rittscher, A deep learning framework for quality assessment and restoration in video endoscopy , Medical Image Analysis 68 (2021), 101900. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1361841520302644

    2021

  4. [4]

    S. Ali, Y. Jonmohamadi, Y. Takeda, J. Roberts, R. Crawford, and A. K. Pandey,Supervised scene illumination control in stereo arthro- scopes for robot assisted minimally invasive surgery , IEEE Sensors Journal 21 (2021), no. 10, 11577–11587

    2021

  5. [5]

    Ameerah et al., Blurred vision, clear concern: linking poor visu- alization with adverse events in minimally invasive surgery, Surgical Endoscopy 39 (2025), no

    A. Ameerah et al., Blurred vision, clear concern: linking poor visu- alization with adverse events in minimally invasive surgery, Surgical Endoscopy 39 (2025), no. 9, 5577–5585. URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00464-025-12052-1

    2025

  6. [6]

    Belmokeddem, K

    M. Belmokeddem, K. khemis, and S. Loudjedi, Transfer learning and machine learning classification for laparoscopic video distor- tion detection , 2024 8th International Conference on Image and Signal Processing and their Applications (ISPA) , 2024, 1–5,

    2024

  7. [7]

    Belmokeddem, K

    M. Belmokeddem, K. Khemis, and S. Loudjedi, Automatic detection of laparoscopic videos distortion using machine learning classi- fication, Frontiers in Biomedical Technologies 12 (2025), no. 2, 341–354. URL https://fbt.tums.ac.ir/index.php/fbt/article/view/873

    2025

  8. [8]

    Belmokeddem, K

    M. Belmokeddem, K. Khemis, and S. Loudjedi, A robust approach for classifying laparoscopic video distortions using resnet-50 , 2025 IEEE 6th International Conference on Image Processing, Applica- tions and Systems (IPAS), vol. CFP2540Z-ART, 2025, 1–6,

    2025

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Bieck, K

    R. Bieck, K. Heuermann, M. Pirlich, J. Neumann, and T. Neumuth, Language-based translation and prediction of surgical navigation steps for endoscopic wayfinding assistance in minimally invasive surgery, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 15 (2020)...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Campos, R

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodríguez, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardós, Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam , IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37 (2021), no. 6, 1874–1890

    2021

  3. [11]

    Chikkerur, V

    S. Chikkerur, V . Sundaram, M. Reisslein, and L. J. Karam, Objec- tive video quality assessment methods: A classification, review, and performance comparison , IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 57 (2011), no. 2, 165–182

    2011

  4. [12]

    Z. Deng, W. Liu, G. Li, and J. Zhang, Constrained visual predictive control of a robotic flexible endoscope with visibility and joint limits constraints, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 10 (2025), no. 2, 1513–1520

    2025

  5. [13]

    Dhingra et al., Clear vision, clear savings: Enhancing efficiency in minimally invasive surgery, JSLS 29 (2025), no

    J. Dhingra et al., Clear vision, clear savings: Enhancing efficiency in minimally invasive surgery, JSLS 29 (2025), no. 3, e2025.00023

    2025

  6. [14]

    Elvira, J

    R. Elvira, J. D. Tardós, and J. M. M. Montiel, Cudasift-slam: multiple-map visual slam for full procedure mapping in real human endoscopy (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16932

    2024

  7. [15]

    M. Grammatikopoulou et al., A spatio-temporal network for video semantic segmentation in surgical videos , International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 19 (2024), no. 2, 375–

    2024

  8. [16]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02971-6

    doi

  9. [17]

    M. K. Hasan, L. Calvet, N. Rabbani, and A. Bartoli, Detection, segmentation, and 3d pose estimation of surgical tools using con- volutional neural networks and algebraic geometry , Medical Image Analysis 70 (2021), 101994. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Hayoz, C

    M. Hayoz, C. Hahne, M. Gallardo, D. Candinas, T. Kurmann, M. Al- lan, and R. Sznitman, Learning how to robustly estimate camera pose in endoscopic videos , International Journal of Computer As- sisted Radiology and Surgery 18 (2023), no. 7, 1185–1192. URL https://doi.org/10.10...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Huber et al., Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navi- gation skills: the SALAS score, Surgical endoscopy 32 (2018), no

    T. Huber et al., Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navi- gation skills: the SALAS score, Surgical endoscopy 32 (2018), no. 12, 4980–4984

    2018

  12. [20]

    Huettl, T

    F. Huettl, T. Huber, M. Duwe, H. Lang, M. Paschold, and W. Kneist, Higher quality camera navigation improves the surgeon’s perfor- mance: Evidence from a pre-clinical study , J. Minim. Access Surg. 16 (2020), no. 4, 355–359

    2020

  13. [21]

    Z. A. Khan, A. Beghdadi, M. Kaaniche, F. Alaya-Cheikh, and O. Gharbi, A neural network based framework for effective laparo- scopic video quality assessment , Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 101 (2022), 102121. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Łącki, M

    M. Łącki, M. Kalia, N. Abraham, S. A. Vasudeva, D. S. C. Ko, T. Bernard, and A. Lorincz, Quantifying lens obstructions in mini- mally invasive surgery: the impact on performance and outcomes , Front. Surg. 12 (2025), 1576422

    2025

  15. [23]

    J. L. Lavanchy, J. Zindel, K. Kirtac, I. Twick, E. Hosgor, D. Candinas, and G. Beldi, Automation of surgical skill assessment using a three- stage machine learning algorithm, Scientific reports11 (2021), no. 1, 5197

    2021

  16. [24]

    D. Lee, H. W. Yu, H. Kwon, H.-J. Kong, K. E. Lee, and H. C. Kim, Evaluation of surgical skills during robotic surgery by deep learning- based multiple surgical instrument tracking in training and actual operations, Journal of Clinical Medicine 9 (2020), no. 6. URL https: //www...

    2020

  17. [25]

    L. Li, W. Lin, X. Wang, G. Yang, K. Bahrami, and A. C. Kot, No-reference image blur assessment based on discrete orthogonal moments, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 46 (2016), no. 1, 39–50

    2016

  18. [26]

    W. Li, Y. Hayashi, M. Oda, T. Kitasaka, K. Misawa, and K. Mori, Enforcing geometric constraints of surface normal and pose for self- supervised monocular depth estimation on laparoscopic images , J. C. Gee et al. (eds.), Medical Image Computing and Computer As- sisted Interven...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Liao et al., Artificial intelligence-assisted phase recogni- tion and skill assessment in laparoscopic surgery: a system- atic review , Frontiers in Surgery Volume 12 - 2025 (2025)

    W. Liao et al., Artificial intelligence-assisted phase recogni- tion and skill assessment in laparoscopic surgery: a system- atic review , Frontiers in Surgery Volume 12 - 2025 (2025). URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/ fsurg.2025.1551838

    2025

  20. [28]

    Ling and M

    Q. Ling and M. Zhao, Stabilization of traffic videos based on both foreground and background feature trajectories, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 29 (2019), no. 8, 2215–2228

    2019

  21. [29]

    Y. Liu, M. Boels, L. C. Garcia-Peraza-Herrera, T. Vercauteren, P. Dasgupta, A. Granados, and S. Ourselin, Lovit: Long video transformer for surgical phase recognition , Medical Image Analy- sis 99 (2025), 103366. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1361841524002913

    2025

  22. [30]

    Marullo, L

    G. Marullo, L. Tanzi, L. Ulrich, F. Porpiglia, and E. Vezzetti, A multi-task convolutional neural network for semantic segmentation and event detection in laparoscopic surgery, Journal of Personalized Medicine 13 (2023), no. 3. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/ 13/3/413

    2023

  23. [31]

    Nilsson, J

    C. Nilsson, J. L. Sorensen, L. Konge, M. Westen, M. Stadeager, B. Ottesen, and F. Bjerrum, Simulation-based camera navigation training in laparoscopy-a randomized trial , Surgical endoscopy 31 (2017), no. 5, 2131–2139

    2017

  24. [32]

    C. I. Nwoye et al., Rendezvous: Attention mechanisms for the recog- nition of surgical action triplets in endoscopic videos , Medical Image Analysis 78 (2022), 102433. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1361841522000846. EXPERT CONSENSUS ON CRITERIA FOR TH...

    2022

  25. [33]

    C. I. Nwoye, K. Elgohary, A. Srinivas, F. Zaid, J. L. Lavanchy, and N. Padoy, Cholectrack20: A multi-perspective tracking dataset for surgical tools , Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Nyi Myo, A

    N. Nyi Myo, A. Boonkong, K. Khampitak, and D. Hormdee, Real- time surgical instrument segmentation analysis using yolov8 with bytetrack for laparoscopic surgery, IEEE Access 12 (2024), 83091– 83103

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. Oh, S. Hwang, J. Lee, W. Tavanapong, J. Wong, and P. C. de Groen, Informative frame classification for endoscopy video, Medical Image Analysis 11 (2007), no. 2, 110–127. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S136184150600079X

    2007

  28. [36]

    Y. Pang, H. Zhu, X. Li, and X. Li,Classifying discriminative features for blur detection , IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 46 (2016), no. 10, 2220–2227

    2016

  29. [37]

    Penza, X

    V . Penza, X. Du, D. Stoyanov, A. Forgione, L. S. Mattos, and E. De Momi, Long term safety area tracking (lt-sat) with online failure de- tection and recovery for robotic minimally invasive surgery, Medical Image Analysis 45 (2018), 13–23. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/sc...

    2018

  30. [38]

    L. Qiu, C. Li, and H. Ren, Real-time surgical instrument track- ing in robot-assisted surgery using multi-domain convolutional neural network , Healthcare Technology Letters 6 (2019), no. 6, 159–164. URL https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1049/htl.2019.0068

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    N. H. Saad, N. A. M. Isa, and A. A. M. Salih, Local neighbour- hood image properties for exposure region determination method in nonuniform illumination images , IEEE Access 8 (2020), 79977– 79997

    2020

  32. [40]

    Sangalli, G

    S. Sangalli, G. Sarwin, E. Erdil, C. Serra, A. Carretta, V . Staartjes, and E. Konukoglu, Conformal forecasting for surgical instrument trajectory, J. C. Gee et al. (eds.), Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2025 , Springer Nature Switzerland, ...

    2025

  33. [41]

    J. Song, R. Zhang, Q. Zhu, J. Lin, and M. Ghaffari, Bdis-slam: a lightweight cpu-based dense stereo slam for surgery , International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 19 (2024), no. 5, 811–820. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-03055-1

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    R. Tao, X. Zou, and G. Zheng, Last: Latent space-constrained trans- formers for automatic surgical phase recognition and tool presence detection, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42 (2023), no. 11, 3256–3268

    2023

  35. [43]

    Tchoulack, J

    S. Tchoulack, J. Pierre Langlois, and F. Cheriet, A video stream pro- cessor for real-time detection and correction of specular reflections in endoscopic images, 2008 Joint 6th International IEEE Northeast Workshop on Circuits and Systems and TAISA Conference , 2008, 49–52,

    2008

  36. [44]

    A. P. Twinanda, S. Shehata, D. Mutter, J. Marescaux, M. de Mathelin, and N. Padoy, Endonet: A deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos , IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 36 (2017), no. 1, 86–97

    2017

  37. [45]

    Wan, X.-Y

    G.- Y. Wan, X.-Y. Zhou, H.-X. Duan, Z.-Y. Zou, M.-M. Zhang, and J.-B. Mao, Comparison of robotic camera holders with human assis- tants in endoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis , Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 32 (2023), no. 4, 153–162

    2023

  38. [46]

    Wang et al., Endogslam: Real-time dense reconstruction and tracking in endoscopic surgeries using gaussian splatting , M

    K. Wang et al., Endogslam: Real-time dense reconstruction and tracking in endoscopic surgeries using gaussian splatting , M. G. Linguraru, Q. Dou, A. Feragen, S. Giannarou, B. Glocker, K. Lekadir, and J. A. Schnabel (eds.),Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interven...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Z. Wang, B. Lu, Y. Long, F. Zhong, T.-H. Cheung, Q. Dou, and Y. Liu, Autolaparo: A new dataset of integrated multi-tasks for image-guided surgical automation in laparoscopic hysterec- tomy, International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention,...

    2022

  40. [48]

    W. Xia, T. M. Peters, V . Fan, H. Sthanunathan, O. Qi, and E. C. S. Chen, In vivo laparoscopic image de-smoking dataset, evaluation, and beyond, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2025), 1–1

    2025

  41. [49]

    L. Yang, Y. Gu, G. Bian, and Y. Liu, Drr-net: A dense-connected residual recurrent convolutional network for surgical instrument segmentation from endoscopic images, IEEE Transactions on Medi- cal Robotics and Bionics 4 (2022), no. 3, 696–707

    2022

  42. [50]

    Zhang, P

    S. Zhang, P. Li, X. Xu, L. Li, and C.-C. Chang, No-reference image blur assessment based on response function of singular values, Sym- metry 10 (2018), no. 8. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/10/ 8/304

    2018

  43. [51]

    Z. Zhao, Z. Chen, S. Voros, and X. Cheng, Real-time tracking of surgical instruments based on spatio-temporal context and deep learning, Computer Assisted Surgery 24 (2019), no. sup1, 20–

    2019

  44. [52]

    Visceral Surgery (general)

    URL https://doi.org/10.1080/24699322.2018.1560097, pMID: 30760050. APPENDIX Appendix starts on the next page. 14 EBRAHIMZADEH et al. 0 2 4 6 8 Distribution of Post-Residency Surgical Experience Pre-residency < 5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years > 20 years 3 6 8 3 1 2 0...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.