↓ Skip to main content

Meaningful Assessment of Robotic Surgical Style using the Wisdom of Crowds

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Meaningful Assessment of Robotic Surgical Style using the Wisdom of Crowds
Published in
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11548-018-1738-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Ershad, R. Rege, A. Majewicz Fey

Abstract

Quantitative assessment of surgical skills is an important aspect of surgical training; however, the proposed metrics are sometimes difficult to interpret and may not capture the stylistic characteristics that define expertise. This study proposes a methodology for evaluating the surgical skill, based on metrics associated with stylistic adjectives, and evaluates the ability of this method to differentiate expertise levels. We recruited subjects from different expertise levels to perform training tasks on a surgical simulator. A lexicon of contrasting adjective pairs, based on important skills for robotic surgery, inspired by the global evaluative assessment of robotic skills tool, was developed. To validate the use of stylistic adjectives for surgical skill assessment, posture videos of the subjects performing the task, as well as videos of the task were rated by crowd-workers. Metrics associated with each adjective were found using kinematic and physiological measurements through correlation with the crowd-sourced adjective assignment ratings. To evaluate the chosen metrics' ability in distinguishing expertise levels, two classifiers were trained and tested using these metrics. Crowd-assignment ratings for all adjectives were significantly correlated with expertise levels. The results indicate that naive Bayes classifier performs the best, with an accuracy of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] when classifying into four, three, and two levels of expertise, respectively. The proposed method is effective at mapping understandable adjectives of expertise to the stylistic movements and physiological response of trainees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Unspecified 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Engineering 12 19%
Unspecified 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,898,030
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
#432
of 859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,653
of 331,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 859 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.