MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153728036 · doi:10.3109/10929080500390017

A system for ultrasound-guided computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery

2005· article· en· W2153728036 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Kuiran Chen, Purang Abolmaesumi, David R. Pichora, Randy E. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Aided Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoroscopyOrthopedic surgeryImaging phantomMedicineModality (human–computer interaction)Image-guided surgerySegmentationMedical imagingComputer scienceUltrasoundComputer visionMedical physicsRadiologyArtificial intelligenceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current computer-assisted orthopedic surgery (CAOS) systems typically use preoperative computed tomography (CT) and intraoperative fluoroscopy as their imaging modalities. Because these imaging tools use X-rays, both patients and surgeons are exposed to ionizing radiation that may cause long-term health damage. To register the patient with the preoperative surgical plan, these techniques require tracking of the targeted anatomy by invasively mounting a tracking device on the patient, which results in extra pain and may prolong recovery time. The mounting procedure also leads to a major difficulty of using these approaches to track small bones or mobile fractures. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to mount a heavy tracking device on a small bone, which thus restricts the use of CAOS techniques. This article presents a novel CAOS method that employs 2D ultrasound (US) as the imaging modality. Medical US is non-ionizing and real-time, and our proposed method does not require any invasive mounting procedures. Experiments have shown that the proposed registration technique has sub-millimetric accuracy in localizing the best match between the intraoperative and preoperative images, demonstrating great potential for orthopedic applications. This method has some significant advantages over previously reported US-guided CAOS techniques: it requires no segmentation and employs only a few US images to accurately and robustly localize the patient. Preliminary laboratory results on both a radius-bone phantom and human subjects are presented.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.023

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Aided SurgerySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207