MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2091217211 · doi:10.1117/12.844234

Representing flexible endoscope shapes with hermite splines

2010· article· en· W2091217211 on OpenAlexafffund
Elvis C. S. Chen, Sharyle Fowler, Lawrence Hookey, Randy E. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEndoscopeVisualizationComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)SurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Navigation of a flexible endoscope is a challenging surgical task: the shape of the end effector of the endoscope, interacting with surrounding tissues, determine the surgical path along which the endoscope is pushed. We present a navigational system that visualized the shape of the flexible endoscope tube to assist gastrointestinal surgeons in performing Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). The system used an electromagnetic positional tracker, a catheter embedded with multiple electromagnetic sensors, and graphical user interface for visualization. Hermite splines were used to interpret the position and direction outputs of the endoscope sensors. We conducted NOTES experiments on live swine involving 6 gastrointestinal and 6 general surgeons. Participants who used the device first were 14.2% faster than when not using the device. Participants who used the device second were 33.6% faster than the first session. The trend suggests that spline-based visualization is a promising adjunct during NOTES procedures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicSurgical Simulation and Training→French-language works237,207→