Robotics and regional anesthesia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Robots in regional anesthesia are used as a tool to automate the performance of regional techniques reducing the anesthesiologist's workload and improving patient care. The purpose of this review is to show the latest findings in robotic regional anesthesia. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature separates robots in anesthesia into two groups: pharmacological robots and manual robots. Pharmacological robots are mainly closed-loop systems that help in the titration of anesthetic drugs to patients undergoing surgery. Manual robots are mechanical robots that are used to support or replace the manual gestures performed by anesthesiologists. Although in the last decade researchers have focused on the development of decision support systems and closed-loop systems, more recent evidence supports the concept that robots can also be useful in performing regional anesthesia techniques. SUMMARY: Robots can improve the performance and safety in regional anesthesia. In this review, we present the developments made in robotic and automated regional anesthesia, and discuss the current state of research in this field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it