MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116617200 · doi:10.1117/12.813457

Disablement of a surgical drill via CT guidance to protect vital anatomy

2009· article· en· W2116617200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher C. Heath, Ramya Balachandran, Omid Majdani, Andrew D. Jurik, Thomas Andrew Edwards, Robert F. Labadie, J. Michael Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsDrillComputer scienceMedical physicsAnatomyMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applying image-guidance to an electronically-controlled surgical drill can prevent damage to patients' anatomy during resection. A system is presented that disables the drill when it nears pre-defined critical patient anatomy. The system consists of a tracking system, image-guidance software, and drill-control circuit. The software was developed in C++ with the help of the Image-Guided Surgery Toolkit, and was designed to track tools based on input from a MicronTracker (Claron Tech, Toronto, Ontario) tracking system. The system registers physical to image space using fiducial markers rigidly attached to the patient, tracks the drill, and automatically disables the drill when close to restricted regions. A coordinate reference frame is used for all physical acquisitions. Visual feedback of the tool's position in image space is provided during tracking. Two tests were performed to determine the feasibility of the system. Virtual restricted regions were defined inside a phantom, and an operator attempted to drill the phantom with the help of the application. No feedback was provided to the user except for the automatic disablement of the drill by the application when close to a restricted region. In the first test, the drill was disabled at 0.74 ± 0.46 mm from the restricted region and entered 5.3% of the surface area of the restricted region. In the second test, the drill was disabled 1.3 ± 0.69 mm from the restricted region and entered the restricted region 8.5% of the time. We conclude that the system shows promise and further testing should be conducted.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207