Monitoring electromagnetic tracking error using redundant sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The intraoperative measurement of tracking error is crucial to ensure the reliability of electromagnetically navigated procedures. For intraoperative use, methods need to be quick to set up, easy to interpret, and not interfere with the ongoing procedure. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of using redundant electromagnetic sensors to alert users to tracking error in a navigated intervention setup. METHODS: Electromagnetic sensors were fixed to a rigid frame around a region of interest and on surgical tools. A software module was designed to detect tracking error by comparing real-time measurements of the differences between inter-sensor distances and angles to baseline measurements. Once these measurements were collected, a linear support vector machine-based classifier was used to predict tracking errors from redundant sensor readings. RESULTS: Measuring the deviation in the reported inter-sensor distance and angle between the needle and cautery served as a valid indicator for electromagnetic tracking error. The highest classification accuracy, 86%, was achieved based on readings from the cautery when the two sensors on the cautery were close together. The specificity of this classifier was 93% and the sensitivity was 82%. CONCLUSION: Placing redundant electromagnetic sensors in a workspace seems to be feasible for the intraoperative detection of electromagnetic tracking error in controlled environments. Further testing should be performed to optimize the measurement error threshold used for classification in the support vector machine, and improve the sensitivity of our method before application in real procedures.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".