MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054279113 · doi:10.1109/bmei.2013.6746969

Compatibility of US motors for development of MRI-guided surgical robot

2013· article· en· W2054279113 on OpenAlexafffund
Wendong Wang, Yikai Shi, Xiaoqing Yuan, A.A. Goldenberg, Peyman Shokrollahi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsScannerIsocenterCompatibility (geochemistry)RobotActuatorPerpendicularComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineeringOpticsImaging phantomMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

US (Ultrasonic) motors have potential applications as MR-compatible actuators for MRI-guided surgical robots. MR compatibility test of US motors (Shinsei USR 30 and USR 60) were performed in 3T MRI scanner under baseline, power-off, power-on, and moving configurations with mounting orientations parallel and perpendicular to the longitudinal bore axis. Normalized SNR was used to calculate the MR compatibility of US motors. The results show that the safe distances for USR 30 and USR 60 from the isocenter are 15cm and 20cm, respectively. Moving configuration decreased the normalized SNR by 15%-25%. In the same mounting orientation, three imaging sequences performed differently in terms of quality of MR images. To conclude, the Shinsei USR 30 and USR 60 are suitable for providing actuation of MRI-guided surgical robot during real-time imaging, and the MR compatibility could be improved by selecting suitable safe distance and mounting orientation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207