Surgical motion characterization in simulated needle insertion procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluation of surgical performance in image-guided needle insertions is of emerging interest, to both promote patient safety and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of training. The purpose of this study was to determine if a Markov model-based algorithm can more accurately segment a needle-based surgical procedure into its five constituent tasks than a simple threshold-based algorithm. METHODS: Simulated needle trajectories were generated with known ground truth segmentation by a synthetic procedural data generator, with random noise added to each degree of freedom of motion. The respective learning algorithms were trained, and then tested on different procedures to determine task segmentation accuracy. In the threshold-based algorithm, a change in tasks was detected when the needle crossed a position/velocity threshold. In the Markov model-based algorithm, task segmentation was performed by identifying the sequence of Markov models most likely to have produced the series of observations. RESULTS: For amplitudes of translational noise greater than 0.01mm, the Markov model-based algorithm was significantly more accurate in task segmentation than the threshold-based algorithm (82.3% vs. 49.9%, p<0.001 for amplitude 10.0mm). For amplitudes less than 0.01mm, the two algorithms produced insignificantly different results. CONCLUSION: Task segmentation of simulated needle insertion procedures was improved by using a Markov model-based algorithm as opposed to a threshold-based algorithm for procedures involving translational noise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".