STATIC PRECISION, REPEATABILITY, AND ACCURACY OF AN OPTOTRAK CERTUS™ OPTICAL RIGID BODY TRACKING SYSTEM: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLANT MICROMOTION ASSESSMENTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Optical tracking is an important biomechanical assessment tool that can quantify the position and orientation of rigid bodies in three-dimensional space that is commonly used to evaluate large- and small-scale displacements. One system commonly used for biomechanical assessments in research labs is the Optotrak Certus™ system (Northern Digital, Waterloo, Canada). This system can monitor marker positions with a reported accuracy of 100μm, however this accuracy is influenced by application-specific factors, and previous investigations have suggested that it may be capable of reliably quantifying much smaller displacements [1]. The purpose of this investigation is to assess the reliability of the Optotrak Certus™ by quantifying its precision, repeatability, and accuracy for use in micromotion investigations. It is hypothesized that the reliability will be better than the 50μm accuracy and 30μm repeatability limits that have previously been proposed for micromotion assessments [1]. Two rigid bodies were mounted to a micrometer test stand used to position the rigid bodies at eight locations in-, then out-of-plane relative to the camera. Both rigid body and camera referencing measurement techniques were assessed. To assess positional precision and repeatability, the test stand was sequentially placed in five pre-defined locations and the static position of the rigid bodies was captured for a duration of 10 seconds, repeated ten times for each location. Positional precision was quantified as the within-trial standard deviation of each of the in-plane and out-of-plane positional coordinates [1][2]. Repeatability was quantified as the between-trial standard deviation of the average position of each of the rigid body's positional coordinates [1][2]. Finally, the test stand was displaced from 0.1–10mm relative to its initial position using the micrometer-controlled test stand, and the static position of the rigid bodies was once again captured. Accuracy was quantified as the difference between the average measured displacement and the expected displacement for each position relative to the initial position. The precision, or within-trial standard deviation of the rigid body's position was poorer when the rigid body referencing method was used, as opposed to direct camera referencing. For these capture techniques, positional precision and repeatability ranged from 0.7μm–14.9μm and 0.8μm–9.2μm, respectively. Repeatability was generally better with the rigid body referencing technique, as opposed to the camera referencing technique ranging between 1.0μm and 3.0μm, as opposed to 0.8μm and 9.2μm, respectively. In- and out-of-plane displacement accuracies ranged from 1.8μm–25.6μm and 2.6μm–29.9μm, respectively, while repeatability ranged from 0.9μm–10.0μm (Figs1,2). The present investigation assessed the Optotrak Certus™ optical tracking system for micro-scale displacements that are relevant to in-vitro assessments of orthopaedic implant subsidence and micromotion. Micro-scale displacements reported through static position captures outperform the 50μm accuracy and 30μm repeatability thresholds that have been suggested for orthopedic micromotion assessments. This was also the first investigation to directly compare how the common practice of referencing the position of one rigid body marker triad relative to another marker impacts positional and displacement reliability, relative to direct camera referencing. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
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 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».