Experimental analysis of robot-assisted needle insertion into porcine liver
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to improve placement accuracy of needle insertion into liver tissue is of paramount interest to physicians. A robot-assisted system was developed to experimentally demonstrate its advantages in needle insertion surgeries. Experiments of needle insertion into porcine liver tissue were performed with conic tip needle (diameter 8 mm) and bevel tip needle (diameter 1.5 mm) in this study. Manual operation was designed to compare the performance of the presented robot-assisted system. The real-time force curves show outstanding advantages of robot-assisted operation in improving the controllability and stability of needle insertion process by comparing manual operation. The statistics of maximum force and average force further demonstrates robot-assisted operation causes less oscillation. The difference of liver deformation created by manual operation and robot-assisted operation is very low, 1 mm for average deformation and 2 mm for maximum deformation. To conclude, the presented robot-assisted system can improve placement accuracy of needle by stably control insertion process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it