Robot-assisted Tactile Sensing for Minimally Invasive Tumor Localization
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
The 10 mm incisions used in minimally invasive cancer surgery prevent the direct palpation of internal organs, making intraoperative tumor localization difficult. A tactile sensing instrument (TSI), which uses a commercially available sensor to measure distributed pressure profiles along the contacting surface, has been developed to facilitate remote tissue palpation. The objective of this research is to assess the feasibility of using the TSI under robotic control to reliably locate underlying tumors while reducing collateral tissue trauma. The performance of humans and a robot using the TSI to locate tumor phantoms embedded into ex vivo bovine livers is compared. An augmented hybrid impedance control scheme has been implemented on a Mitsubishi PA10-7C to perform the force/position control used in the trials. The results show that using the TSI under robotic control realizes an average 35% decrease in the maximum forces applied and a 50% increase in tumor detection accuracy when compared to manual manipulation of the same instrument. This demonstrates that the detection of tumors using tactile sensing is highly dependent on how consistently the forces on the tactile sensing area are applied, and that robotic assistance can be of great benefit when trying to localize tumors in minimally invasive surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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