MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019233484 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2010.5627652

How accurate is accurate enough? A brief overview on accuracy considerations in image-guided cardiac interventions

2010· review· en· W2019233484 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristian A. Linte, John Moore, Terry M. Peters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionPerspective (graphical)Image (mathematics)Computer scienceGuidance systemIntervention (counseling)Medical physicsRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineComputer visionArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided interventions have revolutionized the development of minimally invasive surgical procedures, leading to reduced patient trauma, fewer risks and shorter recovery times. However, one of the most frequently posed question with regards to an image guidance system is how accurate it is. In this work we provide a brief overview on accuracy considerations from our perspective on cardiac image-guided procedures: what are the clinically-imposed accuracy constraints, how do these measure against the limitations of the image-guidance system, and how can surgeons directly benefit from real-time accuracy feedback to ensure optimal navigation at all times during the intervention?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207