Intraoperative visualization and assessment of electromagnetic tracking error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromagnetic tracking allows for increased flexibility in designing image-guided interventions, however it is well understood that electromagnetic tracking is prone to error. Visualization and assessment of the tracking error should take place in the operating room with minimal interference with the clinical procedure. The goal was to achieve this ideal in an open-source software implementation in a plug and play manner, without requiring programming from the user. We use optical tracking as a ground truth. An electromagnetic sensor and optical markers are mounted onto a stylus device, pivot calibrated for both trackers. Electromagnetic tracking error is defined as difference of tool tip position between electromagnetic and optical readings. Multiple measurements are interpolated into the thin-plate B-spline transform visualized in real time using 3D Slicer. All tracked devices are used in a plug and play manner through the open-source SlicerIGT and PLUS extensions of the 3D Slicer platform. Tracking error was measured multiple times to assess reproducibility of the method, both with and without placing ferromagnetic objects in the workspace. Results from exhaustive grid sampling and freehand sampling were similar, indicating that a quick freehand sampling is sufficient to detect unexpected or excessive field distortion in the operating room. The software is available as a plug-in for the 3D Slicer platforms. Results demonstrate potential for visualizing electromagnetic tracking error in real time for intraoperative environments in feasibility clinical trials in image-guided interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".