New Protocol for Skin Landmark Registration in Image-Guided Neurosurgery
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
BACKGROUND: Newer versions of the commercial Medtronic StealthStation allow the use of only 8 landmark pairs for patient-to-image registration as opposed to 9 landmarks in older systems. The choice of which landmark pair to drop in these newer systems can have an effect on the quality of the patient-to-image registration. OBJECTIVE: To investigate 4 landmark registration protocols based on 8 landmark pairs and compare the resulting registration accuracy with a 9-landmark protocol. METHODS: Four different protocols were tested on both phantoms and patients. Two of the protocols involved using 4 ear landmarks and 4 facial landmarks and the other 2 involved using 3 ear landmarks and 5 facial landmarks. Both the fiducial registration error and target registration error were evaluated for each of the different protocols to determine any difference between them and the 9-landmark protocol. RESULTS: No difference in fiducial registration error was found between any of the 8-landmark protocols and the 9-landmark protocol. A significant decrease (P < .05) in target registration error was found when using a protocol based on 4 ear landmarks and 4 facial landmarks compared with the other protocols based on 3 ear landmarks. CONCLUSION: When using 8 landmarks to perform the patient-to-image registration, the protocol using 4 ear landmarks and 4 facial landmarks greatly outperformed the other 8-landmark protocols and 9-landmark protocol, resulting in the lowest target registration error.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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