MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258184371 · doi:10.1142/6816

Haptics for Teleoperated Surgical Robotic Systems

2008· book· en· W2258184371 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Tavakoli, Rajni V. Patel, Mehrdad Moallem, A Aziminejad

Bibliographic record

VenueNew frontiers in robotics · 2008
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeleoperationHaptic technologyHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceSimulationRobotArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important obstacle in Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) is the significant degradation of haptic feedback (sensation of touch) to the surgeon about surgical instrument s interaction with tissue. This monograph is concerned with devices and methods required for incorporating haptic feedback in master-slave robotic MIS systems. In terms of devices, novel mechanisms are designed including a surgical end-effector (slave) with full force sensing capabilities and a surgeon-robot interface (master) with full force feedback capabilities. Using the master-slave system, various haptic teleoperation control schemes are compared in terms of stability and performance, and passivity-based time delay compensation for haptic teleoperation over a long distance is investigated. The monograph also compares haptic feedback with visual feedback and with substitution for haptic feedback by other sensory cues in terms of surgical task performance. Contents: Introduction; Sensorized Surgical Effector (Slave); Haptic User Interface (Master); Unilateral Teleoperation Control; Bilateral Teleoperation Control; Substitution for Haptic Feedback: Bilateral Teleoperation Control Under Time Delay.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations90
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew frontiers in roboticsSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207