MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515578666 · doi:10.1002/rcs.1760

An image‐guided automated robot for MRI breast biopsy

2016· article· en· W2515578666 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn G. Chan, Tim Fielding, Mehran Anvari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsAir CanadaMcMaster UniversityCanadian Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatabilityComputer scienceBreast biopsyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage qualityRobotProjectileSimulationMedicineImage (mathematics)MammographyBreast cancerMaterials scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The IGAR (Image-guided Automated Robot) is a robotic platform capable of performing highly accurate clinical interventions under image guidance. The IGAR is unique in that it demonstrates MRI compatibility and maintains safe operation, adequate shielding, high image quality, and accurate robotic control even while in an imaging environment. The IGAR is initially intended for breast biopsy. METHODS: Tests for projectile hazards, heating, signal-to-noise ratio loss, and geometric distortion were used to demonstrate MR compatibility. Accuracy and repeatability of the robotic system were tested on benchtop models to establish a baseline of precision. RESULTS: The IGAR averaged an accuracy of 0.34 mm and a repeatability of 0.2 mm. There was no significant distortion attributable to the robot, no projectile risk, and no unacceptable levels of heating. CONCLUSION: The IGAR system is safe and effective in an MRI environment Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted SurgerySame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207