MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082983068 · doi:10.1002/rcs.308

New tactile sensing system for minimally invasive surgical tumour localization

2010· article· en· W2082983068 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa T. Perri, Ana Luisa Trejos, Michael D. Naish, Rajni V. Patel, Richard Malthaner

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersEthicon Endo-Surgery
KeywordsEx vivoImaging phantomHaptic technologyBiomedical engineeringOccultInvasive surgeryComputer scienceIn vivoMedicineSurgeryNuclear medicinePathologyArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) suffers from the inability to directly palpate organs for tumour localization. A tactile sensing system (TSS), consisting of a probe and a visualization interface, was developed to present an active pressure map of the contact surface to locate tumours during MIS. METHODS: The TSS performance was compared to MIS graspers to locate occult 10 mm phantom tumours in ex vivo bovine liver and ex vivo porcine lung. Performance assessment included applied pressure, localization distance and accuracy. RESULTS: The TSS realized a relative 71% reduction in maximum applied pressure and a 31% increase in detection accuracy in liver tissue (when compared to MIS graspers) and demonstrated no significant differences in performance when palpating lung tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The TSS may help surgeons to identify occult tumours during surgery by restoring some of the haptic information lost during MIS.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted SurgerySame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207