Haptic interaction in robot‐assisted endoscopic surgery: a sensorized end‐effector
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
Conventional endoscopic surgery has some drawbacks that can be addressed by using robots. The robotic systems used for surgery are still in their infancy. A major deficiency is the lack of haptic feedback to the surgeon. In this paper, the benefits of haptic feedback in robot-assisted surgery are discussed. A novel robotic end-effector is then described that meets the requirements of endoscopic surgery and is sensorized for force/ torque feedback. The endoscopic end-effector is capable of non-invasively measuring its interaction with tissue in all the degrees of freedom available during endoscopic manipulation. It is also capable of remotely actuating a tip and measuring its interaction with the environment without using any sensors on the jaws. The sensorized end-effector can be used as the last arm of a surgical robot to incorporate haptic feedback and/or to evaluate skills and learning curves of residents and surgeons in endoscopic surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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