MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970942391 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2012.2206388

Magnetic Navigation for Thoracic Aortic Stent-graft Deployment Using Ultrasound Image Guidance

2012· article· en· W1970942391 on OpenAlexaff
Zhe Luo, Junfeng Cai, Su Wang, Qiang Zhao, Terry M. Peters, Lixu Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiducial markerImaging phantomImage-guided surgeryStentNavigation systemComputer visionComputer scienceUltrasoundRadiologyBiomedical engineeringMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a system for thoracic aortic stent-graft deployment that employs a magnetic tracking system (MTS) and intraoperative ultrasound (US). A preoperative plan is first performed using a general public utilities-accelerated cardiac modeling method to determine the target position of the stent-graft. During the surgery, an MTS is employed to track sensors embedded in the catheter, cannula, and the US probe, while a fiducial landmark based registration is used to map the patient's coordinate to the image coordinate. The surgical target is tracked in real time via a calibrated intraoperative US image. Under the guidance of the MTS integrated with the real-time US images, the stent-graft can be deployed to the target position without the use of ionizing radiation. This navigation approach was validated using both phantom and animal studies. In the phantom study, we demonstrate a US calibration accuracy of 1.5 ± 0.47 mm, and a deployment error of 1.4 ± 0.16 mm. In the animal study, we performed experiments on five porcine subjects and recorded fiducial, target, and deployment errors of 2.5 ± 0.32, 4.2 ± 0.78, and 2.43 ± 0.69 mm, respectively. These results demonstrate that delivery and deployment of thoracic stent-graft under MTS-guided navigation using US imaging is feasible and appropriate for clinical application.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207