Comparison of abdominal‐wall stretching between basic and enhanced laparoscopic instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In laparoscopic surgery, access to the patient's abdomen is gained by using an instrument, consisting of a 300–400 mm long stem with attached tool, inserted through a cannula mounted in the patient's abdominal wall. Sliding of the stem relative to the cannula and rotation of the stem about its longitudinal axis are the only motions not constrained by the abdominal wall. These limited‐motion capabilities necessitate abdominal‐wall stretching for full‐spatial tool displacements. Abdominal‐wall stretching is potentially damaging to the patient and fatiguing to the surgeon. Minimization of stretching is shown to be possible by the addition of a single revolute joint to the basic instrument. The motions allowed by the stem and cannula, the additional joint, and the abdominal wall result in a kinematically redundant system; i.e., an infinite number of joint displacements exist to achieve a desired tool position and orientation (desired tool pose). An optimization technique is applied to determine the minimum stretching for desired tool poses. Elimination of stretching is shown to be possible by the addition of two revolute joints to the basic instrument. Displacement models for the basic and enhanced instruments are found using concepts of manipulator kinematics. Forward and inverse displacement solutions for the instruments are found. The inverse displacement solutions are used to compare the amount of stretching required by each instrument. The stretching is highest for the basic instrument. The instrument with one additional joint produces stretching that is always less than or equal to that of the basic instrument. The instrument with two additional joints eliminates the need for stretching. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".