Machine learning models have seen a lot of success in medical image segmentation domain. However, one of the challenges that they face are confounders or shortcuts: spurious correlations or biases in the training data that affect the resulting models. One example of such confounders for surgical machine learning is the setup of surgical equipment, including tools and lighting. Using the task of identification of safe and dangerous zones of dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy images and videos as a use-case, we inspect two equipment-induced biases: the presence of surgical tools in the field of view and the position of lighting. We propose methods for evaluating the severity of these biases and augmentation-based methods for mitigating them. We show that our tool bias mitigations improve the models’ consistency under tool movements by 9 percentage points in the most inconsistent cases, and by 4 percentage points on average. Our lighting bias mitigations help reduce fraction of true dangerous zone pixels that may be predicted as safe under light changes from 5% to 1.5%, without compromising segmentation quality.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Yes

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by UHN REB.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data used in this research is either already available and cited appropriately, or available upon request.