Understanding the Effect of Bias in Fiducial Localization Error on Point-Based Rigid-Body Registration
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
Image registration is a single point of failure in the image-guided computer-assisted surgery. Registration is primarily used to align and fuse the data sets taken from patient's anatomy before and during surgeries. Point-based rigid-body registration is usually performed by identifying corresponding fiducials (either natural landmarks or implanted ones) in the data sets. Since the localization of fiducials is imprecise and is generally perturbed by random noise, the performed registration is imperfect and has some error. Previous work has extensively analyzed the behavior of this error when the fiducial localization error has zero-mean over the entire set of fiducials. However, if noise has a nonzero-mean or a bias, no formulation yet exists to determine the effect of noise on the overall registration accuracy. In this work, we derive novel formulations that relate the bias in the localized fiducials to the accuracy of the performed registration. We analytically and numerically demonstrate that by eliminating the estimated bias from the measured fiducial locations, one can effectively increase the accuracy of the performed registration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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