Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Rochak Dhakal, Chen Zhao, Soup Cobb, Xin Qian +2 more
Published
Nov 6, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
35% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Nov 6, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review. However, extracting meaningful information often requires extensive manual review and clinical expertise. Automated surgical scene descriptions could reduce this burden by leveraging recurring surgical activities and prior knowledge. Methods: We propose GRAC (Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Captioning), a framework that represents surgical scenes as graphs capturing relationships among instruments, actions, and anatomical structures. Given an input scene graph, GRAC learns to retrieve relevant graph-caption pairs from training data. It compares instrument-tissue interactions between retrieved examples and the input scene, using comparison features to condition retrieved-caption representations during generation. Results: On the EndoVis-18 benchmark, GRAC achieved a CIDEr-D of 5.88, compared with 4.23 for SGT and 3.36 for the strongest conventional Transformer baseline. Exact instrument-action-target triplet-set accuracy reached 52.6%, compared with 32.7% for SGT and 26.2% for the strongest conventional baseline. These results demonstrate improvements in language quality and factual agreement. On TORS, GRAC achieved a CIDEr-D of 5.06, compared with 3.80 for the strongest baseline. Conclusion: GRAC demonstrates that combining structured surgical scene representations with retrieved examples improves surgical scene captioning and produces more contextually meaningful descriptions.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review."
Accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"Exact instrument-action-target triplet-set accuracy reached 52.6%, compared with 32.7% for SGT and 26.2% for the strongest conventional baseline."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy