MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405878242 · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-932-5-419

Feasibility Study of Patient-Specific Surgical Templates for the Fixation of Pedicle Screws

2002· article· en· W2405878242 on OpenAlexaff
F Salako, Clément Fortin, Hubert Labelle

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemplateFixation (population genetics)MedicineSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgery for scoliosis, as well as other posterior spinal surgeries, frequently uses pedicle screws to fix an instrumentation on the spine. Misplacement of a screw can lead to intra- and post-operative complications. The objective of this study is to design patient-specific surgical templates to guide the drilling operation. From the CT-scan of a vertebra, the optimal drilling direction and limit angles are computed from an inverse projection of the pedicle limits. The first template design uses a surface-to-surface registration method and was constructed in a CAD system by subtracting the vertebra from a rectangular prism and a cylinder with the optimal orientation. This template and the vertebra were built using rapid prototyping. The second design uses a point-to-surface registration method and has 6 adjustable screws to adjust the orientation and length of the drilling support device. A mechanism was designed to hold it in place on the spinal process. A virtual prototype was build with CATIA software. During the operation, the surgeon places either template on patient's vertebra until a perfect match is obtained before drilling. The second design seems better than the first one because it can be reused on different vertebra and is less sensible to registration errors. The next step is to build the second design and make experimental and simulations tests to evaluate the benefits of this template during a scoliosis operation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207