Skull registration for prone patient position using tracked ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tracked navigation has become prevalent in neurosurgery. Problems with registration of a patient and a preoperative image arise when the patient is in a prone position. Surfaces accessible to optical tracking on the back of the head are unreliable for registration. We investigated the accuracy of surface-based registration using points accessible through tracked ultrasound. Using ultrasound allows access to bone surfaces that are not available through optical tracking. Tracked ultrasound could eliminate the need to work (i) under the table for registration and (ii) adjust the tracker between surgery and registration. In addition, tracked ultrasound could provide a non-invasive method in comparison to an alternative method of registration involving screw implantation. METHODS: A phantom study was performed to test the feasibility of tracked ultrasound for registration. An initial registration was performed to partially align the pre-operative computer tomography data and skull phantom. The initial registration was performed by an anatomical landmark registration. Surface points accessible by tracked ultrasound were collected and used to perform an Iterative Closest Point Algorithm. RESULTS: When the surface registration was compared to a ground truth landmark registration, the average TRE was found to be 1.6±0.1mm and the average distance of points off the skull surface was 0.6±0.1mm. CONCLUSION: The use of tracked ultrasound is feasible for registration of patients in prone position and eliminates the need to perform registration under the table. The translational component of error found was minimal. Therefore, the amount of TRE in registration is due to a rotational component of 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".