Evaluating optical stabilization of the beating heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a surgical procedure performed to revascularize the areas of the heart deprived of oxygen by blockages. This procedure is relatively common. Improvement of this form of treatment is the topic of this article. An optical stabilization technique developed with the goal of enabling surgery on the beating heart is proposed and evaluated. The technique proposes that an ECG-triggered strobe light be focused on the surgical site making the heart appear still to the surgeon. The illusion of stillness then allows the surgeon to suture uninhibited by the actual motion. A test apparatus to model the heart was constructed and human-factors testing carried out to evaluate subject performance under conditions resembling those when suturing, with and without this strobe in place. In answer to the specific question of this research, "is strobing of a regular, beating heart beneficial to suturing as compared to suturing under normal lighting conditions?" the answer is "no". This was shown in both the objective and subjective measures. Whereas a strobed heart platform should have been less confusing to the subjects, easier to see, and thereby easier to mark, the opposite was seen. Time to perforrn the test was greater for the test of complicated motion with the strobe than without. Error increased as well. For both regularly lit room tests, subjects had better placement of marks as compared to when they did the same tests under optically stabilized conditions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".