MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544641369 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2016.2622361

Shape Sensing Techniques for Continuum Robots in Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Survey

2016· review· en· W2544641369 on OpenAlexaff
Chaoyang Shi, Xióngbiāo Luó, Peng Qi, Tianliang Li, Shuang Song, Zoran Najdovski, Toshio Fukuda, Hongliang Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSingapore Millennium Foundation
KeywordsRobotInstrumentation (computer programming)KinematicsInvasive surgeryComputer scienceRoboticsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionControl engineeringSimulationEngineeringSurgeryPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuum robots provide inherent structural compliance with high dexterity to access the surgical target sites along tortuous anatomical paths under constrained environments and enable to perform complex and delicate operations through small incisions in minimally invasive surgery. These advantages enable their broad applications with minimal trauma and make challenging clinical procedures possible with miniaturized instrumentation and high curvilinear access capabilities. However, their inherent deformable designs make it difficult to realize 3-D intraoperative real-time shape sensing to accurately model their shape. Solutions to this limitation can lead themselves to further develop closely associated techniques of closed-loop control, path planning, human-robot interaction, and surgical manipulation safety concerns in minimally invasive surgery. Although extensive model-based research that relies on kinematics and mechanics has been performed, accurate shape sensing of continuum robots remains challenging, particularly in cases of unknown and dynamic payloads. This survey investigates the recent advances in alternative emerging techniques for 3-D shape sensing in this field and focuses on the following categories: fiber-optic-sensor-based, electromagnetic-tracking-based, and intraoperative imaging modality-based shape-reconstruction methods. The limitations of existing technologies and prospects of new technologies are also discussed.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations404
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207