MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907909569 · doi:10.1002/rcs.1711

Design, development and evaluation of a compact telerobotic catheter navigation system

2015· article· en· W1907909569 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Ali Tavallaei, Daniel Gelman, Michael Konstantine Lavdas, Allan C. Skanes, Douglas L. Jones, Jeffrey Bax, Maria Drangova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsCentre for Imaging Technology CommercializationLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCatheterComputer scienceNavigation systemAblationSimulationBiomedical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Remote catheter navigation systems protect interventionalists from scattered ionizing radiation. However, these systems typically require specialized catheters and extensive operator training. METHODS: A new compact and sterilizable telerobotic system is described, which allows remote navigation of conventional tip-steerable catheters, with three degrees of freedom, using an interface that takes advantage of the interventionalist's existing dexterity skills. The performance of the system is evaluated ex vivo and in vivo for remote catheter navigation and ablation delivery. RESULTS: The system has absolute errors of 0.1 ± 0.1 mm and 7 ± 6° over 100 mm of axial motion and 360° of catheter rotation, respectively. In vivo experiments proved the safety of the proposed telerobotic system and demonstrated the feasibility of remote navigation and delivery of ablation. CONCLUSION: The proposed telerobotic system allows the interventionalist to use conventional steerable catheters; while maintaining a safe distance from the radiation source, he/she can remotely navigate the catheter and deliver ablation lesions. 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted SurgerySame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207