MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061852425 · doi:10.1115/1.4003736

3D Graphical Rendering of Localized Lumps and Arteries for Robotic Assisted MIS

2011· article· en· W2061852425 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Kalantari, Mohammadreza Ramezanifard, Javad Dargahi, József Kövecses

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalpationRendering (computer graphics)Computer scienceAccidentalSoft tissueMedicineSurgical robotLaparoscopic surgeryArtificial intelligenceBiomedical engineeringSurgeryComputer visionRadiologyRobotLaparoscopyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of hard inclusions within soft tissue in robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery (MIS), also referred to as laparoscopic surgery, is of great importance, both in clinical and surgical applications. In clinical applications, surgeons need to detect and precisely identify the location and size of all growths, whether cancerous or benign, that are present within surrounding tissue in order to assess the extent and nature of any future treatment plan. In surgical applications, when any solid matter is being removed, it is important to avoid accidental injury to surrounding tissues and blood vessels since, were this to occur, it could then necessitate the need to resort to open surgery. The present study is aimed at developing a three-dimensional tactile display that provides palpation capability to any surgeon performing robotic assisted MIS. The information is collected from two force sensor/pressure matrices and processed with a new algorithm and graphically rendered. Consequently, the surgeon can determine the presence, location, and the size of any hidden superficial tumor/artery by grasping the target tissue in a quasi-dynamic way. The developed algorithm is presented, and the results for various configurations of embedded tumor/arteries inside the tissue are compared with those of the finite element analysis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207