A point-selection algorithm based on spatial-stiffness analysis of rigid registration
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 propose a model of shape-based registration that leads to a task-specific algorithm for preoperatively selecting a set of model registration points. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed five sets of computer simulations using registration points generated by our algorithm and two noise amplification index (NAI) algorithms on the basis of the research of Simon 20. We used several different bone surface models (distal radius, proximal femur and tibia) computed from CT images of patient volunteers. The number of registration points used varied between 6 and 30. RESULTS: Our algorithm was faster than the NAI-based algorithms by factors of approximately 4 and 200. It had equal or better performance in terms of target registration error (TRE) when compared with the other algorithms. Our simulations also showed that point selection can have a large effect on TRE behavior; in particular, poor point selection does not necessarily decrease TRE as more registration points are added. CONCLUSIONS: Our point-selection algorithm produces model registration points with similar or better TRE behavior than the NAI-based algorithms we tested, and it does so with significantly less computation time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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