Skip to content
← Back to explorer

SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

Guanyi Qin, Xiaozhen Wang, Zhu Zhuo, Chang Han Low, Yuancan Xiao, Yibing Fu, Haofeng Liu, Kai Wang, Chunjiang Li, Yueming Jin · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load. Existing AI systems offer binary safety verification or static detection, ignoring the phase-dependent nature of intraoperative reasoning. We introduce ResGo, a benchmark of laparoscopic frames annotated with Go Zone bounding boxes and clinician-authored rationales covering phase, exposure quality reasoning, next action and risk reminder. We introduce evaluation metrics that treat correct grounding under incorrect phase as failures, revealing that most vision-language models cannot handle such tasks and perform poorly. We then present SurGo-R1, a model optimized via RLHF with a multi-turn phase-then-go architecture where the model first identifies the surgical phase, then generates reasoning and Go Zone coordinates conditioned on that context. On unseen procedures, SurGo-R1 achieves 76.6% phase accuracy, 32.7 mIoU, and 54.8% hardcore accuracy, a 6.6$\times$ improvement over the mainstream generalist VLMs. Code, model and benchmark will be available at https://github.com/jinlab-imvr/SurGo-R1

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

What We Could Verify

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.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Expert Verification

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"On unseen procedures, SurGo-R1 achieves 76.6% phase accuracy, 32.7 mIoU, and 54.8% hardcore accuracy, a 6.6$\times$ improvement over the mainstream generalist VLMs."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Expert Verification
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: Medicine, Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load.
  • Existing AI systems offer binary safety verification or static detection, ignoring the phase-dependent nature of intraoperative reasoning.
  • We introduce ResGo, a benchmark of laparoscopic frames annotated with Go Zone bounding boxes and clinician-authored rationales covering phase, exposure quality reasoning, next action and risk reminder.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical cont
  • Existing AI systems offer binary safety verification or static detection, ignoring the phase-dependent nature of intraoperative reasoning.
  • We introduce ResGo, a benchmark of laparoscopic frames annotated with Go Zone bounding boxes and clinician-authored rationales covering phase, exposure quality reasoning, next action and risk reminder.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Existing AI systems offer binary safety verification or static detection, ignoring the phase-dependent nature of intraoperative reasoning.
  • We introduce ResGo, a benchmark of laparoscopic frames annotated with Go Zone bounding boxes and clinician-authored rationales covering phase, exposure quality reasoning, next action and risk reminder.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Expert Verification

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.