Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Utilizing Machine Learning and Automated Performance Metrics to Evaluate Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performance and Predict Outcomes

Hung, Andrew J., Chen, Jian, Che, Zhengping, Nilanon, Tanachat, Jarc, Anthony, Titus, Micha, Oh, Paul J., Gill, Inderbir S., Liu, Yan·2018·Journal of Endourology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Surgical performance is critical for clinical outcomes. We present a novel machine learning (ML) method of processing automated performance metrics (APMs) to evaluate surgical performance and predict clinical outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We trained three ML algorithms utilizing APMs directly from robot system data (training material) and hospital length of stay (LOS; training label) (≤2 days and >2 days) from 78 RARP cases, and selected the algorithm with the best performance. The selected algorithm categorized the cases as "Predicted as expected LOS (pExp-LOS)" and "Predicted as extended LOS (pExt-LOS)." We compared postoperative outcomes of the two groups (Kruskal-Wallis/Fisher's exact tests). The algorithm then predicted individual clinical outcomes, which we compared with actual outcomes (Spearman's correlation/Fisher's exact tests). Finally, we identified five most relevant APMs adopted by the algorithm during predicting. RESULTS: The "Random Forest-50" (RF-50) algorithm had the best performance, reaching 87.2% accuracy in predicting LOS (73 cases as "pExp-LOS" and 5 cases as "pExt-LOS"). The "pExp-LOS" cases outperformed the "pExt-LOS" cases in surgery time (3.7 hours vs 4.6 hours, p = 0.007), LOS (2 days vs 4 days, p = 0.02), and Foley duration (9 days vs 14 days, p = 0.02). Patient outcomes predicted by the algorithm had significant association with the "ground truth" in surgery time (p < 0.001, r = 0.73), LOS (p = 0.05, r = 0.52), and Foley duration (p < 0.001, r = 0.45). The five most relevant APMs, adopted by the RF-50 algorithm in predicting, were largely related to camera manipulation. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, ours is the first study to show that APMs and ML algorithms may help assess surgical RARP performance and predict clinical outcomes. With further accrual of clinical data (oncologic and functional data), this process will become increasingly relevant and valuable in surgical assessment and training.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/end.2018.0035

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Hung, A. J., Chen, J., Che, Z., Nilanon, T., Jarc, A., Titus, M., Oh, P. J., Gill, I. S., & Liu, Y.
Venue
Journal of Endourology
Published
2018-05
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
438-444
ISSN
  • 0892-7790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-900X
OpenAlex
W2788941211
Cited by
190
References
1
FWCI
10.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Utilizing Machine Learning and Automated Performance Metrics to Evaluate Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performance and Predict Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/end.2018.0035
The paper
Hung, A. J., Chen, J., Che, Z., Nilanon, T., Jarc, A., Titus, M., Oh, P. J., Gill, I. S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Utilizing Machine Learning and Automated Performance Metrics to Evaluate Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performance and Predict Outcomes. Journal of Endourology. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0035

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.