Looking Beyond the Scale: Do Surgical Skill Models Learn Transferable Representations Across Assessment Rubrics?
Organizations: Department of Translational Surgical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), NCT/UCC Dresden, a partnership between DKFZ, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Germany · Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD), Dresden, Germany · BMFTR Research Hub 6G-Life, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD), Dresden, Germany · Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany ·
Abstract
Vision-based surgical skill assessment has shown strong in-domain results, yet a fundamental question remains unasked: do these models learn transferable representations of surgical proficiency, or do they merely encode dataset-specific visual patterns? This paper systematically analyzes what limits cross-domain skill transfer between the GOALS and OSATS assessment scales using the LASANA and JIGSAWS datasets. Each evaluated method serves a targeted diagnostic purpose: end-to-end training to test whether supervised skill learning transfers directly, Adaptive Sharpness-Aware Minimization (ASAM) to probe whether flatter loss landscapes improve generalization, and augmentation-based self-supervised and contrastive learning to assess whether domain-invariant pretraining decouples skill from visual context. Transfer is evaluated in both directions using a disjoint-participant held-out test set for JIGSAWS. Results reveal an asymmetry: backbones pretrained on JIGSAWS achieve CCC values of 0.77 to 0.80 on LASANA, closely matching the end-to-end baseline, showing cross-rubric transfer is feasible when the target domain provides consistent supervision. Transfer to JIGSAWS fails across all methods, likely due to annotation inconsistencies. Control experiments with a Kinetics-pretrained backbone suggest task-specific heads carry the majority of the skill prediction burden, while the backbone need only provide adequate spatiotemporal features. These findings offer a new perspective on vision-based skill assessment: the central question of whether skill representations transfer across scoring systems has not been previously investigated. Results indicate the visual component is dominant but not solely responsible for skill prediction; further work is needed to conclusively disentangle transferable skill features from those bound to a specific visual domain.
Figures & tables
| LASANA | JIGSAWS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE |
| Kinetics | 0.78 (0.03) | 0.07 (0.007) | - | - |
| Supervised | 0.81 (0.01) | 0.07 (0.004) | 0.08 (0.08) | 0.16 (0.011) |
| ASAM | 0.74 (0.04) | 0.07 (0.004) | 0.06 (0.04) | 0.18 (0.012) |
| SSL | 0.78 (0.06) | 0.07 (0.012) | 0.09 (0.09) | 0.19 (0.006) |
| CL | 0.80 (0.01) | 0.07 (0.001) | 0.20 (0.06) | 0.16 (0.004) |
| JIGSAWS | LASANA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | CCC | MAE | CCC | MAE |
| Kinetics | 0.17 (0.01) | 0.19 (0.06) | - | - |
| Supervised | -0.03 (0.08) | 0.23 (0.012) | 0.80 (0.01) | 0.07 (0.002) |
| ASAM | 0.22 (0.01) | 0.18 (0.009) | 0.79 (0.05) | 0.07 (0.004) |
| SSL | 0.22 (0.05) | 0.18 (0.012) | 0.79 (0.02) | 0.07 (0.004) |
| CL | 0.05 (0.02) | 0.18 (0.003) | 0.77 (0.04) | 0.07 (0.006) |
Cross-Domain Transfer Learning
Cross-domain transfer learning reuses knowledge across datasets, populations, devices, or tasks when their distributions and feature spaces differ.
See all 203 papers