MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117772780 · doi:10.1117/12.686434

Catheter kinematics and control to enhance cardiac ablation

2006· article· en· W2117772780 on OpenAlexaff
Yusof Ganji, Farrokh Janabi‐Sharifi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatheterKinematicsFluoroscopyCardiac AblationAblationComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Catheter ablationProcess (computing)Control engineeringSimulationSurgeryEngineeringControl (management)MedicineArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catheter ablation is the preferred minimally invasive treatment for cardiac arrhythmias. Limited maneuverability of currently available catheters undermines the success of this treatment and subjects operations to prolonged repeated attempts to pace suspicious zones and ablate the arrhythmogenic substrates under ionizing radiation of fluoroscopy. To compensate for such inefficiencies, a control system that can replace operator's hand during the procedure is desired. This system should be able to direct catheter tip toward the ablation site and maintain its contact with the substrate during ablation, accelerating the process and enhancing its precision. To realize such a system, the first step is to kinematically model the catheter and to devise a control strategy to embed the kinematics of the catheter. This paper proposes a simplified approach to model and control a general single-segment active catheter as a continuum robot. In this approach, the flexible catheter is modeled as a rigid manipulator having coupled joints. Utilizing the structural coupling of the catheter, joint-variables are reduced to actuatable parameters thus lifting some of the mathematical difficulties in formulation of a control strategy for redundant manipulators. The modeling is validated through experiments with a typical steerable ablation catheter equipped with an electromagnetic tracker in vitro.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207