MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022599806 · doi:10.1159/000354819

A Miniature Optical Neuronavigation System for CT-Guided Stereotaxy

2013· article· en· W2022599806 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsImaging phantomNeuronavigationCannulaNuclear medicineStereotaxyComputer scienceWorkflowMedicineFixation (population genetics)Biomedical engineeringComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsRadiologySurgeryMagnetic resonance imagingHaptic technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Neuronavigation devices have progressed over the past 2 decades, but logistical limitations remain for many stereotactic procedures. We describe our technique and accuracy for a novel miniature optical tracking system which overcomes these limitations. METHOD: The minioptical tracking system uses a miniature video camera mounted on a rigid cannula to determine cannula location and orientation relative to a patient-attached sticker containing reference markers. A CT scan is used to register these markers to the anatomy and a user-selected target. A computer displays the cannula guidance information to the target. Bench testing was performed on 225 targets in a custom test phantom and additional testing was performed on 20 small targets in an anthropomorphic head phantom to determine the practical accuracy and workflow. RESULTS: The phantom study demonstrated that 3-D navigation accuracy is 1.41 ± 0.53 mm. There was a 100% head phantom study success rate for the 20 small targets. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting accuracy data demonstrated good correlation with the CT data, and the clinical simulation workflow indicated its potential usefulness for common neurosurgical applications. Furthermore, this small-footprint tracking technology does not experience the traditional environmentally induced issues or the requirement of pin-based head fixation, allowing for use in the neurointensive care unit and the emergency department.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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