Robot-assisted lung motion compensation during needle insertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a robotic solution is proposed to deal with the challenges caused by lung motion during needle insertion. To accomplish this goal, a macro-micro robotic tool is designed to compensate for tissue motion using the macro part, while performing the needle insertion independently with the micro part. The main application of this work is for robotics-assisted lung tumor biopsy, where the combined motions of respiration and heartbeat may compromise success. An impedance-based controller keeps the macro reference coordinate in contact with the moving soft tissue using measurements from small pressure sensors mounted at the tip of the macro shaft. The micro part, mounted at the end of the macro robot, manipulates the needle in the harmonized reference coordinate system. Preoperative identification of ex vivo soft tissue is performed to estimate the dynamic behavior of the tissue. The controller is then synthesized based on the identified model. The effects of identification error and high frequency uncertainty are addressed in the control design. A prototype was built to evaluate the proposed approach using: 1) two Mitsubishi PA-10 robots, one for manipulating the macro part and the other for mimicking tissue motion, 2) one motorized linear stage to handle the micro part, and 3) a Phantom Omni haptic device for remote manipulation. Experimental results demonstrate the performance of the motion compensation system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".