MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170339093 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5333452

Model based stabilization of soft tissue targets in needle insertion procedures

2009· article· en· W2170339093 on OpenAlexaff
Justin A. Smolen, Alexandru Patriciu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaddleComputer scienceBoundary (topology)Deflection (physics)Computer visionControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a soft tissue target stabilization method during needle insertion procedures. The object considered in this study may have fixed boundary sections and limited surface exposed to external manipulation. The target must be stabilized along the needle path during the needle insertion. It is assumed that a paddle with fixed geometry is available for deformable object manipulation. Two approaches were considered for the target stabilization problem. The first approach uses a static paddle placed on the available boundary, at a strategic location, such that the target motion orthogonal to the needle axis is minimized during the needle insertion. The second approach uses a dynamic paddle attached to the available boundary for the active compensation of the target deflection. In this paper we analyze the optimal paddle placement for the two proposed approaches and present initial numerical results for the case of homogeneous and nonhomogeneous deformable objects. The results show that the first approach is sensitive to possible non-homogeneities in the object, therefore it is not robust to modeling errors. The results also show that optimal placement for the second approach is less sensitive to modeling errors, making it more desirable for physical applications.

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 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 score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207