MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005914117 · doi:10.1109/haptics.2008.4479951

Graphical Reproduction of Tactile Information of Embedded Lumps for MIS Applications

2008· article· en· W2005914117 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Ramezanifard, Saeed Sokhanvar, Javad Dargahi, Wenfang Xie, Muthukumaran Packirisamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalpationProcess (computing)Computer scienceHaptic technologyTactile sensorArtificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Promising results of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the last two decades have been the main incentive of numerous researches to conquer some of the drawbacks of this procedure. Restoring the missing tactile information, especially the tissue palpation, is a significant enhancement in MIS capabilities. Tissue palpation is particularly important and commonly used in locating the embedded lumps. The present study is inspired by this essential limitation in MIS procedure and is aimed at developing a system to reconstruct the lost palpation capability of surgeons in an effective way. Having collected necessary information on the size and location of the hidden features using MIS graspers equipped with tactile sensors, we can process the information and graphically represent them to the surgeon. Therefore, the proposed system allows the surgeons to observe the presence or absence, location and approximate size of hidden lumps simply by grasping the target organ with smart endoscopic grasper. It is shown that using one array of the sensing elements; the proposed system can extract lump information including size and longitudinal location. The experimental results on the prototyped MIS graspers represented by graphical images conform to those of the finite element models.

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 score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207