MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331492476 · doi:10.1142/s2424905x1640002x

Ultrasound-Based Image Guidance and Motion Compensating Control for Robot-Assisted Beating-Heart Surgery

2016· article· en· W2331492476 on OpenAlexafffund
Meaghan Bowthorpe, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Robotics Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsTeleoperationTask (project management)Computer visionUltrasoundOrientation (vector space)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineRobotRadiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performing a surgical task on a beating heart requires superhuman skill as the surgeon must manually track the heart’s motion while performing a surgical task. However, the ability to operate on a beating heart would eliminate the need to use a mechanical stabilizer or arrest the heart and connect the patient to a heart-lung machine and would consequently eliminate their side effects. This work develops the image processing and control structure for an ultrasound-guided robot-assisted beating heart surgical system that will move the surgical tool tip in synchrony with the heart. This would allow the surgeon to operate through teleoperation on a virtually stabilized point on the heart. In developing this system, the position data acquired from ultrasound images is upsampled and predicted ahead to compensate for the image acquisition and processing delay. We present the results of a user task based on mitral valve annuloplasty performed under ultrasound guidance.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Robotics ResearchSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207