MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164398960 · doi:10.3109/10929088.2012.744096

Computer-assisted planning and navigation improves cutting accuracy during simulated bone tumor surgery of the pelvis

2012· article· en· W2164398960 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Aided Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvisMargin (machine learning)Computer scienceResectionNavigation systemProcess (computing)OrthodonticsMedicineSurgeryComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Resection of bone tumors within the pelvis requires good cutting accuracy to achieve satisfactory safe margins. Manually controlled bone cutting can result in serious errors, especially due to the complex three-dimensional geometry, limited visibility, and restricted working space of the pelvic bone. This experimental study investigated cutting accuracy during navigated and non-navigated simulated bone tumor cutting in the pelvis. METHODS: A periacetabular tumor resection was simulated using a pelvic bone model. Twenty-three operators (10 senior and 13 junior surgeons) were asked to perform the tumor cutting, initially according to a freehand procedure and later with the aid of a navigation system. Before cutting, each operator used preoperative planning software to define four target planes around the tumor with a 10-mm desired safe margin. After cutting, the location and flatness of the cut planes were measured, as well as the achieved surgical margins and the time required for each cutting procedure. RESULTS: The location of the cut planes with respect to the target planes was significantly improved by using the navigated cutting procedure, averaging 2.8 mm as compared to 11.2 mm for the freehand cutting procedure (p < 0.001). There was no intralesional tumor cutting when using the navigation system. The maximum difference between the achieved margins and the 10-mm desired safe margin was 6.5 mm with the navigated cutting process (compared to 13 mm with the freehand cutting process). CONCLUSIONS: Cutting accuracy during simulated bone cuts of the pelvis can be significantly improved by using a freehand process assisted by a navigation system. When fully validated with complementary in vivo studies, the planning and navigation-guided technologies that have been developed for the present study may improve bone cutting accuracy during pelvic tumor resection by providing clinically acceptable margins.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.242 · 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