Tracked ultrasound calibration studies with a phantom made of LEGO bricks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, spatial calibration of tracked ultrasound was compared by using a calibration phantom made of LEGO® bricks and two 3-D printed N-wire phantoms. METHODS: The accuracy and variance of calibrations were compared under a variety of operating conditions. Twenty trials were performed using an electromagnetic tracking device with a linear probe and three trials were performed using varied probes, varied tracking devices and the three aforementioned phantoms. The accuracy and variance of spatial calibrations found through the standard deviation and error of the 3-D image reprojection were used to compare the calibrations produced from the phantoms. RESULTS: This study found no significant difference between the measured variables of the calibrations. The average standard deviation of multiple 3-D image reprojections with the highest performing printed phantom and those from the phantom made of LEGO® bricks differed by 0.05 mm and the error of the reprojections differed by 0.13 mm. CONCLUSION: Given that the phantom made of LEGO® bricks is significantly less expensive, more readily available, and more easily modified than precision-machined N-wire phantoms, it prompts to be a viable calibration tool especially for quick laboratory research and proof of concept implementations of tracked ultrasound navigation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".