MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling and simulation of flexible needles

2009· article· en· W2014163332 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBendingFinite element methodBrachytherapyDisplacement (psychology)Nonlinear systemMechanical engineeringBiomedical engineeringSimulationComputer scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysicsSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Needle insertion is performed in many clinical and therapeutic procedures. Tissue displacement and needle bending which result from needle-tissue interaction make accurate targeting difficult. For performing physicians to gain essential needle targeting skills, needle insertion simulators can be used for training. An accurate needle bending model is essential for such simulators. These bending models are also needed for needle path planning. In this paper, three different models are presented to simulate the deformations of a needle. The first two models use the finite element method and take the geometric nonlinearity into account. The third model is a series of rigid bars connected by angular springs. The models were compared to recorded deformations during experiments of applying lateral tip forces on a brachytherapy needle. The model parameters were identified and the simulation results were compared to the experimental data. The results show that the angular spring model, which is computationally the most efficient model, is also the most accurate in modeling the bending of the brachytherapy needle.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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