MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-Time 2D Surface Profile Mapping of Biological Tissue with Force Feedback in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery

2015· article· en· W2241070727 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Reza Hassan Beiglou, Javad Dargahi

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyRobotCasterBall (mathematics)Invasive surgeryEncoderSIGNAL (programming language)Strain gaugeEngineeringBiomedical engineeringComputer visionComputer scienceSimulationArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been more than 20 years that robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RMIS) has brought remarkable accuracy and dexterity for surgeons along with the decreasing trauma for the patients. In this paper a novel method of the tissue’s surface profile mapping is proposed. The tissue surface profile plays an important role for material identification during RMIS. It is shown how by integrating the force feedback into robot controller the surface profile of the tissue can be obtained with force feedback scanning. The experiment setup includes a 5 degree of freedoms (DOFs) robot which is equipped with a strain-gauge ball caster as the force feedback. Robot joint encoders signals and the captured force signal of the strain-gauge are transferred to developed surface transformation algorithm (STA). The real-time geometrical transformation process is triggered with force signal to identify contact points between the ball caster and the artificial tissue. The 2D surface profile of tissue will be mapped based on these contact points. Real-time capability of the proposed system is evaluated experimentally for the artifical tissues in a designed test rig.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207