Evaluation of the Intel RealSense SR300 camera for image-guided interventions and application in vertebral level localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Optical pose tracking of medical instruments is often used in image-guided interventions. Unfortunately, compared to commonly used computing devices, optical trackers tend to be large, heavy, and expensive devices. Compact 3D vision systems, such as Intel RealSense cameras can capture 3D pose information at several magnitudes lower cost, size, and weight. We propose to use Intel SR300 device for applications where it is not practical or feasible to use conventional trackers and limited range and tracking accuracy is acceptable. We also put forward a vertebral level localization application utilizing the SR300 to reduce risk of wrong-level surgery. METHODS: The SR300 was utilized as an object tracker by extending the PLUS toolkit to support data collection from RealSense cameras. Accuracy of the camera was tested by comparing to a high-accuracy optical tracker. CT images of a lumbar spine phantom were obtained and used to create a 3D model in 3D Slicer. The SR300 was used to obtain a surface model of the phantom. Markers were attached to the phantom and a pointer and tracked using Intel RealSense SDK’s built-in object tracking feature. 3D Slicer was used to align CT image with phantom using landmark registration and display the CT image overlaid on the optical image. RESULTS: Accuracy of the camera yielded a median position error of 3.3mm (95th percentile 6.7mm) and orientation error of 1.6° (95th percentile 4.3°) in a 20x16x10cm workspace, constantly maintaining proper marker orientation. The model and surface correctly aligned demonstrating the vertebral level localization application. CONCLUSION: The SR300 may be usable for pose tracking in medical procedures where limited accuracy is acceptable. Initial results suggest the SR300 is suitable for vertebral level localization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".