Application of a laser‐guided docking system in robot‐assisted urologic surgery
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
BACKGROUND: This work explores the clinical significance of a laser-guided docking system for robot-assisted urologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2013 and June 2014, 40 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), and 32 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) performed by a single surgeon. In the RALP and RAPN groups, the robot was docked in the traditional way in 20 and 16 cases, respectively. A laser guiding system was used in the other cases. The docking time and the time required to adjust the angles were recorded. RESULT: The docking time was significantly shorter for the laser-guided process performed by inexperienced nurses. The time required to adjust the angles was also lower. There were no significant differences between the processes performed by experienced nurses. CONCLUSION: A laser-guided docking system may simplify and standardize the docking process and shorten the learning curve. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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