Absolute accuracy analysis and improvement of a hybrid 6-DOF medical robot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a calibration method developed to improve the accuracy of a six degrees-of-freedom medical robot. The proposed calibration approach aims to enhance the robot’s accuracy in a specific target workspace. A comparison of five observability indices is also done to choose the most appropriate calibration robot configurations. Design/methodology/approach – The calibration method is based on the forward kinematic approach, which uses a nonlinear optimization model. The used experimental data are 84 end-effector positions, which are measured using a laser tracker. The calibration configurations are chosen through an observability analysis, while the validation after calibration is carried out in 336 positions within the target workspace. Findings – Simulations allowed finding the most appropriate observability index for choosing the optimal calibration configurations. They also showed the ability of our calibration model to identify most of the considered robot’s parameters, despite measurement errors. Experimental tests confirmed the simulation findings and showed that the robot’s mean position error is reduced from 3.992 mm before calibration to 0.387 mm after, and the maximum error is reduced from 5.957 to 0.851 mm. Originality/value – This paper presents a calibration method which makes it possible to accurately identify the kinematic errors for a novel medical robot. In addition, this paper presents a comparison between the five observability indices proposed in the literature. The proposed method might be applied to any industrial or medical robot similar to the robot studied in this paper.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".