MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126057216 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2009.2024208

Distribution of Fiducial Registration Error in Rigid-Body Point-Based Registration

2009· article· en· W2126057216 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFiducial markerPoint distribution modelPoint (geometry)Distribution (mathematics)Computer scienceImage registrationArtificial intelligencePoint set registrationComputer visionRigid bodyObservational errorAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsGeometryImage (mathematics)Mathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rigid-body point-based registration is frequently used in computer assisted surgery to align corresponding points, or fiducials, in preoperative and intraoperative data. This alignment is mostly achieved by assuming the same homogeneous error distribution for all the points; however, due to the properties of the medical instruments used in measuring the point coordinates, the error distribution might be inhomogeneous and different for each point. In this paper, in an effort to understand the effect of error distribution in the localized points on the performed registration, we derive a closed-form solution relating the error distribution of each point with the performed registration accuracy. The solution uses maximum likelihood estimation to calculate the probability density function of registration error at each fiducial point. Extensive numerical simulations are performed to validated the proposed solution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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