A buyer's guide to electromagnetic tracking systems for clinical applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When choosing an Electromagnetic Tracking System (EMTS) for image-guided procedures, it is desirable for the system to be usable for different procedures and environments. Several factors influence this choice. To date, the only factors that have been studied extensively, are the accuracy and the susceptibility of electromagnetic tracking systems to distortions caused by ferromagnetic materials. In this paper we provide a holistic overview of the factors that should be taken into account when choosing an EMTS. These factors include: the system's refresh rate, the number of sensors that need to be tracked, the size of the navigated region, system interaction with the environment, can the sensors be embedded into the tools and provide the desired transformation data, and tracking accuracy and robustness. We evaluate the Aurora EMTS (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) and the 3D Guidance EMTS with the flat-panel and the short-range field generators (Ascension Technology Corp., Burlington, Vermont, USA) in three clinical environments. We show that these systems are applicable to specific procedures or in specific environments, but that, no single system is currently optimal for all environments and procedures we evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it