A Comparative Study in Surgical AI: Datasets, Foundation Models, and Barriers to Med-AGI
Skobelev, K.; Fithian, E.; Baranovski, Y.; Cook, J.; Angara, S.; Otto, S.; Yi, Z.-F.; Zhu, J.; Donoho, D. A.; Han, X. Y.; Mainkar, N.; Masson-Forsythe, M.
Show abstract
Recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) models have matched or exceeded human experts in several benchmarks of biomedical task performance, but have lagged behind on surgical image-analysis benchmarks. Since surgery requires integrating disparate tasks --- including multimodal data integration, human interaction, and physical effects --- generally-capable AI models could be particularly attractive as a collaborative tool if performance could be improved. On the one hand, the canonical approach of scaling architecture size and training data is attractive, especially since there are millions of hours of surgical video data generated per year. On the other hand, preparing surgical data for AI training requires significantly higher levels of professional expertise, and training on that data requires expensive computational resources. These trade-offs paint an uncertain picture of whether and to-what-extent modern AI could aid surgical practice. In this paper, we explore this question through a case study of surgical tool detection using state-of-the-art AI methods available in 2026. We demonstrate that even with multi-billion parameter models and extensive training, current Vision Language Models fall short in the seemingly simple task of tool detection in neurosurgery. Additionally, we show scaling experiments indicating that increasing model size and training time only leads to diminishing improvements in relevant performance metrics. Thus, our experiments suggest that current models could still face significant obstacles in surgical use cases. Moreover, some obstacles cannot be simply ``scaled away'' with additional compute and persist across diverse model architectures, raising the question of whether data and label availability are the only limiting factors. We discuss the main contributors to these constraints and advance potential solutions.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Deep learning models for COVID-19 chest x-ray classification: Preventing shortcut learning using feature disentanglement 93%
- Compressive Big Data Analytics: An Ensemble Meta-Algorithm for High-dimensional Multisource Datasets 92%
- Robust Disease Prognosis via Diagnostic Knowledge Preservation: A Sequential Learning Approach 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- MotorNet: a Python toolbox for controlling differentiable biomechanical effectors with artificial neural networks 92%
- An emerging view of neural geometry in motor cortex supports high-performance decoding 92%
- TweetyNet: A neural network that enables high-throughput, automated annotation of birdsong 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.