Fusion of Electromagnetic Trackers to Improve Needle Deflection Estimation: Simulation Study
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
We present a needle deflection estimation method to anticipate needle bending during insertion into deformable tissue. Using limited additional sensory information, our approach reduces the estimation error caused by uncertainties inherent in the conventional needle deflection estimation methods. We use Kalman filters to combine a kinematic needle deflection model with the position measurements of the base and the tip of the needle taken by electromagnetic (EM) trackers. One EM tracker is installed on the needle base and estimates the needle tip position indirectly using the kinematic needle deflection model. Another EM tracker is installed on the needle tip and estimates the needle tip position through direct, but noisy measurements. Kalman filters are then employed to fuse these two estimates in real time and provide a reliable estimate of the needle tip position, with reduced variance in the estimation error. We implemented this method to compensate for needle deflection during simulated needle insertions and performed sensitivity analysis for various conditions. At an insertion depth of 150 mm, we observed needle tip estimation error reductions in the range of 28% (from 1.8 to 1.3 mm) to 74% (from 4.8 to 1.2 mm), which demonstrates the effectiveness of our method, offering a clinically practical solution.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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