MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Image-Guided Interventions: Technology Review and Clinical Applications

2010· review· en· W2112521440 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

VenueAnnual Review of Biomedical Engineering · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionField (mathematics)Medical physicsComputer scienceVisualizationMedicineData scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided interventions are medical procedures that use computer-based systems to provide virtual image overlays to help the physician precisely visualize and target the surgical site. This field has been greatly expanded by the advances in medical imaging and computing power over the past 20 years. This review begins with a historical overview and then describes the component technologies of tracking, registration, visualization, and software. Clinical applications in neurosurgery, orthopedics, and the cardiac and thoracoabdominal areas are discussed, together with a description of an evolving technology named Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). As the trend toward minimally invasive procedures continues, image-guided interventions will play an important role in enabling new procedures, while improving the accuracy and success of existing approaches. Despite this promise, the role of image-guided systems must be validated by clinical trials facilitated by partnerships between scientists and physicians if this field is to reach its full potential.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.397 · 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