Application Accuracy of an Electromagnetic Field-Based Image-Guided Navigation System
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
OBJECTIVE: We tested the application accuracy of an electromagnetic field-based image guidance system to compare it to traditional optically tracked systems. METHODS: A plastic skull phantom was fitted with fiducial markers rigidly attached via self-drilling bone screws. Volumetric CT scan was obtained to simulate the clinical condition. A metal disc marked in 1-mm increments was placed at the expected target point. Following registration and alignment of a trajectory guide, radial and depth localization errors were measured after both freehand and stabilized approaches on both the right and left sides. Statistical analyses of the localization errors were performed. RESULTS: Total target localization error ranged from 0.71 to 3.51 mm with a mean +/- SEM of 2.13 +/- 0.11 mm. The radial error averaged 0.98 +/- 0.11 mm, depth error 1.74 +/- 0.13 mm. The freehand procedures produced a statistically greater radial, depth and total error than the fixed procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of image-guided localization using an electromagnetic field guidance system is similar to that reported for optically guided systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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