Robotic acquisition of echocardiographic images, a proof of concept and safety study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Introduction Though echocardiography remains the most utilized imaging modality in daily cardiology practice, a major challenge remains the physical strain and injury that can be induced in the echocardiographer. Purpose We developed a prototype robotic arm assisted echocardiography system which incorporates robotics with traditional echocardiography. We assessed the safety and feasibility of the system in 31 volunteers. Methods An ultrasound transducer was mounted upon a robotic arm (UR10 robotic arm, Universal Robots, Odense, Denmark). The transducer was connected to a Philips EPIQ 7C system. The position of the transducer was modified by the echocardiographer who could manipulate a remote stick controller in their hand whilst orientating its position in relation to the real-time images acquired upon the monitor of the echocardiography scanner. This enabled the sonographer to optimize the images and to initiate recordings of parasternal and apical 2D and 3D images. The maximal force on the robot arm was set to 5 Newtons (N) which was deemed to be both safe and to allow for adequate image quality. The force induced by the probe upon the chest wall was measured continuously. Acquired images were assessed for quality ranging from excellent to poor. Results 17 males and 14 females were scanned. The number of images acquired varied from a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 61. The mean time taken to scan an individual was 17.4 minutes with a standard deviation (SD) of 9.9 minutes. This equated to an average of 1.9 images per minute (SD 0.7). No statistical difference was noted between the number of images per minute obtained between male and female participants (mean (+/- SD) for males was 2.1(0.8) and for females 1.8 (0.7) P=0.27). The average force that was applied by the probe was 3.95+/-0.83 Newtons. None of the volunteers reported significant discomfort in the acquisition of the images. Of the 3D images obtained 5 of the participants had poor apical 3D datasets and 3 had poor parasternal datasets but the remaining images acquired were adequate for diagnostic quality. Conclusion(s) Our study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of acquiring 2D and 3D images using a prototype robotic arm assisted echocardiography system. Despite using a low force to the chest wall, the majority of images obtained were of diagnostic quality. Future studies will assess the techniques validity within a routine patient population compared to standard imaging performed by an experienced sonographer. Set up of robot-arm echocardioghy
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».