Robotic telesurgery: a real‐world comparison of ground‐ and satellite‐based internet performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telesurgery was performed with ground vs. satellite networks, and differing satellite bandwidths. METHODS: The networks were compared during internal mammary artery (LIMA) dissection in pigs (n = 8). Length of LIMA dissected and surgical quality (five-point scale) were recorded. Also, satellite bandwidth was decreased (n = 7) to determine a limit for telesurgery. RESULTS: No significant differences existed in LIMA dissection during the ground (4.3 +/- 0.5 cm) and satellite phases (5.4 +/- 1.1 cm; p > 0.05) or in quality of surgery, although latency on satellite was 10 times greater (55 vs. 600 ms). With decreasing satellite bandwidth, surgery was not possible below 3 Mb/s, and quality of surgery was significantly decreased comparing 9 Mb/s (4.38 +/- 0.66/5) to 3 Mb/s (4.10 +/- 0.80/5; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Satellite communication is a viable telesurgical modality. Satellite bandwidth should be above 5 Mb/s during telesurgery if used primarily or as back-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".