3D point cloud analysis of structured light registration in computer-assisted navigation in spinal surgeries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-assisted navigation is used by surgeons in spine procedures to guide pedicle screws to improve placement accuracy and in some cases, to better visualize patient’s underlying anatomy. Intraoperative registration is performed to establish a correlation between patient’s anatomy and the pre/intra-operative image. Current algorithms rely on seeding points obtained directly from the exposed spinal surface to achieve clinically acceptable registration accuracy. Registration of these three dimensional surface point-clouds are prone to various systematic errors. The goal of this study was to evaluate the robustness of surgical navigation systems by looking at the relationship between the optical density of an acquired 3D point-cloud and the corresponding surgical navigation error. A retrospective review of a total of 48 registrations performed using an experimental structured light navigation system developed within our lab was conducted. For each registration, the number of points in the acquired point cloud was evaluated relative to whether the registration was acceptable, the corresponding system reported error and target registration error. It was demonstrated that the number of points in the point cloud neither correlates with the acceptance/rejection of a registration or the system reported error. However, a negative correlation was observed between the number of the points in the point-cloud and the corresponding sagittal angular error. Thus, system reported total registration points and accuracy are insufficient to gauge the accuracy of a navigation system and the operating surgeon must verify and validate registration based on anatomical landmarks prior to commencing surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".