← Latest papers
💻 computer science

Point Tracking in Surgery--The 2025 Surgical Tattoos in Infrared Challenge (STIRC2025)

This paper presents the results and participant methods of the 2025 Surgical Tattoos in Infrared Challenge (STIRC2025), held at MICCAI EndoVis 2025, which evaluated seven teams on point tracking accuracy and inference efficiency using the STIR dataset to advance surgical applications like segmentation and 3D reconstruction.

Original authors: Adam Schmidt, Mert Asim Karaoglu, Zijian Wu, Jiaming Zhang, Yuxin Chen, Tim Salcudean, Ho-Gun Ha, Minkang Jang, Kyungmin Jung, Ihsan Ullah, Hyunki Lee, Suresh Guttikonda, Sarah Latus, Alexander Schlae
Published 2026-07-15
📖 6 min read🧠 Deep dive

Original authors: Adam Schmidt, Mert Asim Karaoglu, Zijian Wu, Jiaming Zhang, Yuxin Chen, Tim Salcudean, Ho-Gun Ha, Minkang Jang, Kyungmin Jung, Ihsan Ullah, Hyunki Lee, Suresh Guttikonda, Sarah Latus, Alexander Schlaefer, Xinkai Zhao, Yuichiro Hayashi, Masahiro Oda, Takayuki Kitasaka, Kensaku Mori, Peng Liu, Chenyang Li, Stefanie Speidel, Aoife Gardiner, Agostino Stilli, Danail Stoyanov, Francisco Vasconcelos, Anwesa Choudhuri, Meng Zheng, Zhongpai Gao, Benjamin Planche, Van Nguyen Nguyen, Terrence Chen, Ziyan Wu, Alexander Ladikos, Omid Mohareri

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

Imagine you are watching a high-stakes video game where the characters are made of squishy, wobbly jelly, and the camera is zooming in and out while spinning wildly. Your job? To keep your finger glued to seven specific specks of glitter on that jelly, no matter how much it stretches, twists, or gets covered by a giant hand. If you lose track of even one speck, the game ends.

This is exactly the challenge faced by the 2025 STIR Challenge (Surgical Tattoos in Infrared). It's a competition where computer scientists race to build "digital fingers" that can track tiny dots on moving tissue during surgery. The goal isn't just to see the dots; it's to know exactly where they are in 3D space, even when the tissue is squishing around like a wet noodle.

The Setup: Invisible Ink and Invisible Eyes

To make this fair, the organizers created a special dataset called STIRC2025. They didn't just use random videos; they used a "surgical tattoo" technique. Think of it like drawing tiny dots on a pig's skin (for live tests) or different tissues (for dead tests) using a special ink that glows under infrared light but is invisible to the naked eye.

Here's how the data works:

  1. The Start: The camera sees the glowing dots in infrared.
  2. The Action: The camera switches to normal white light, and surgeons (or robots) move the tissue around.
  3. The End: The camera switches back to infrared to see where the dots ended up.

The challenge gave teams 32 video clips (each about 7.7 seconds long on average) containing a total of 234 dots to track. The teams had to write algorithms that could follow these dots frame-by-frame, like a super-fast game of "follow the leader."

The Rules of the Game

The judges measured two things:

  1. Accuracy: How close was the algorithm's guess to the real final position of the dot? They checked this at different "tolerance levels." For 2D tracking, they measured errors in pixels (like 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 pixels). For 3D tracking, they measured in millimeters (2, 4, 8, 16, 32 mm).
  2. Efficiency: How fast was the algorithm? In surgery, you can't wait for the computer to think. They measured the "latency" (how long it takes to process one frame) and looked at the 95th and 99th percentiles to make sure the system didn't have any "slow moments" that could cause a crash.

The Contenders and the Results

Seven teams entered the arena. Here is what happened:

The 2D Tracking Race (Flat Screen)
The goal was to track the dots on a flat 2D screen.

  • The Surprise Winner: The most accurate method wasn't a fancy new invention by a team; it was a baseline method called MFT (Multi-Frame Tracker) that the organizers provided as a starting point. It scored an average accuracy of 83.50.
  • The Human Teams: The best human team, CCG DGIST, came in second with a score of 82.99. They used a "hybrid" approach, mixing two different tracking styles (one good at short moves, one good at long moves) and switching between them like a driver shifting gears.
  • The "Control" Group: There was a team that just guessed "zero movement" for every dot. They scored 50.00, proving that doing nothing is definitely worse than trying.

The 3D Tracking Race (Depth)
This was harder. The teams had to figure out how deep the dots were in space.

  • The Winner: Team NCT TSO took the top spot among the submissions with a score of 68.46. They used a clever trick involving a "Kalman filter" (a math tool that predicts motion) and checked their work against itself to catch mistakes.
  • The Runner-up: Team MFTIQProb came in second with 57.09.
  • The Baseline: The organizers' own 3D baseline (which combined 2D tracking with a stereo camera) scored 58.80. This means the winning team (NCT TSO) beat the baseline, but the second-place team (MFTIQProb) actually scored lower than the baseline.

The Speed Race (Efficiency)
Speed matters. If your algorithm is too slow, the surgeon can't use it.

  • The Fastest: Team NCT TSO also won the speed contest. Their algorithm processed a frame in just 26.25 milliseconds.
  • The Gap: The next fastest team was 5 times slower, taking 140.52 milliseconds.
  • The Cut-off: To enter the speed race, a team's accuracy had to be at least 90% of the best accuracy. Two teams (SRV and BlueJays) were too inaccurate to even compete in the speed category.

What the Paper Says (and Doesn't Say)

The authors are careful to point out a few things:

  • No Magic Bullet: The fact that the baseline MFT method was the most accurate suggests that the teams might have been "over-fitting" (memorizing the test data too much) or that the baseline is just really solid. The authors suggest that future teams need to focus on robust cross-validation to make sure their methods work on new data, not just the test set.
  • 3D is Still Tricky: The paper notes that no team tracked points "fully in 3D" from scratch. Everyone used a mix of 2D tracking plus stereo camera math. The authors suspect that making a model that understands 3D depth natively is too complex right now.
  • The "Control" Check: The "Control" method (guessing zero motion) was included to make sure everyone was using the data correctly. If you can't beat the "do nothing" team, you're doing it wrong.

The Takeaway

The 2025 STIR Challenge showed that while we have some very fast and accurate tools for tracking tissue, the "perfect" solution is still being built. The best results came from teams that combined old-school reliability with new tricks, like Team CCG DGIST in 2D and Team NCT TSO in 3D and speed.

The authors suggest that the next step isn't just building bigger models, but building smarter ones that can learn from limited data, use "pseudo-labels" (teaching AI with its own guesses), and handle the weird lighting and squishiness of real surgery without getting confused. It's a work in progress, but the "digital fingers" are getting a lot steadier.

Drowning in papers in your field?

Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.

Try Digest →