Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image-guided surgery often requires establishing the relationship between the coordinate frame of the patient and the coordinate frame of a preoperative model of the patient. This relationship is often established by finding a registration transformation that maps points measured on the patient to the preoperative model. In this dissertation I study the estimation of the expected registration accuracy and methods for selecting registration points. The contributions made in this dissertation include a method for analyzing registration error, an analytic expression for shape-based target registration error (TRE), two algorithms for sequentially selecting registration points, a particle-filter registration algorithm, and a unified filter-selection algorithm. The registration problem is modelled after a passive elastic mechanism. Such mechanisms have been extensively studied and are characterized by a 6 x 6 spatial-stiffness matrix. Coordinate-frame invariant quantities called the principal rotational stiffnesses and the principal translational stiffnesses can be computed from the stiffness matrix; these quantities are related to the amount of energy an agent must expend to produce specific types of displacements of the mechanism. The principal stiffnesses are used to produce equations that predict the expected TRE for rigid fiducial registration and rigid shape-based registration. The spatial-stiffness concept is also used to propose two algorithms for sequentially selecting registration points. The TREseq algorithm selects the next registration point that minimizes the expected TRE, and the Qseq algorithm selects the next registration point that maximizes a quality measure based on the principal stiffnesses. These algorithms are compared to an algorithm proposed by Simon [71]. The point selection algorithms are limited to preoperative use because they require exact location and surface-normal information. I propose that this limitation can be overcome by estimating the uncertainties in the registration parameters and accounting for these uncertainties in the selection process. The registration parameters and uncertainties are estimated sequentially using a particle filter. The uncertainties are propagated through the Qseq point selection process to produce a distribution of quality measures on each model point. The unified filter-selection registration algorithm has increasingly better TRE behavior as registration points with higher mean quality measure are used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".