MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042641515 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/14/r01

Image-guidance for surgical procedures

2006· review· en· W2042641515 on OpenAlexafffund
Terry M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceStereoscopyVisualizationProcess (computing)Medical physicsNeuronavigationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRadiologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary imaging modalities can now provide the surgeon with high quality three- and four-dimensional images depicting not only normal anatomy and pathology, but also vascularity and function. A key component of image-guided surgery (IGS) is the ability to register multi-modal pre-operative images to each other and to the patient. The other important component of IGS is the ability to track instruments in real time during the procedure and to display them as part of a realistic model of the operative volume. Stereoscopic, virtual- and augmented-reality techniques have been implemented to enhance the visualization and guidance process. For the most part, IGS relies on the assumption that the pre-operatively acquired images used to guide the surgery accurately represent the morphology of the tissue during the procedure. This assumption may not necessarily be valid, and so intra-operative real-time imaging using interventional MRI, ultrasound, video and electrophysiological recordings are often employed to ameliorate this situation. Although IGS is now in extensive routine clinical use in neurosurgery and is gaining ground in other surgical disciplines, there remain many drawbacks that must be overcome before it can be employed in more general minimally-invasive procedures. This review overviews the roots of IGS in neurosurgery, provides examples of its use outside the brain, discusses the infrastructure required for successful implementation of IGS approaches and outlines the challenges that must be overcome for IGS to advance further.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.019

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations254
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207