MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Needle insertion into soft tissue: A survey

2006· review· en· W2090415875 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)Soft tissueDeformation (meteorology)StiffnessPercutaneousBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceSurgeryEngineeringMedicinePhysicsComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Needle insertion in soft tissue has attracted considerable attention in recent years due to its application in minimally invasive percutaneous procedures such as biopsies and brachytherapy. This paper presents a survey of the current state of research on needle insertion in soft tissue. It examines the topic from several aspects, e.g. modeling needle insertion forces, modeling tissue deformation and needle deflection during insertion, robot-assisted needle insertion, and the effect of different trajectories on tissue deformation. All studies show that the axial force of a needle during insertion in soft tissue is the summation of different forces distributed along the needle shaft such as stiffness force, frictional force and cutting force. Some studies have modeled these forces. The force data in some procedures is used for identifying tissue layers as the needle is inserted or for path planning. Needle deflection and tissue deformation are major problems for accurate needle insertion and attempts have been made to model them. Using current models several insertion techniques have been developed which are briefly reviewed in this paper.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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