Quantification and Comparison of Neurosurgical Approaches in the Anatomy Laboratory: Description and Validation of a Novel, Navigation-based Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anatomical studies are an essential part of surgical innovation and evaluation. A common limitation of most available research methods for the comparison of neurosurgical approaches in the anatomy laboratory is the lack of volumes visualization and quantification. Objective: To describe the development and validation of a neuronavigation-based method, which allows the quantification of the anatomical features that define an approach, as well as the real-time visualization of the surgical pyramid. Methods: The method was initially developed with commercially available hardware for coordinates collection (a digitizer and a frameless navigation system) and software for volume rendering; a dedicated neuronavigation software (ApproachViewer, part of GTx-UHN) was then developed. The accuracy of measurements (distances, areas, volumes) and the possibility of 3D rendering of surgical approaches simulated in a phantom were compared among the three different methods and a commercially available radiological software. ApproachViewer was tested in the anatomy laboratory for the analysis of multiple neurosurgical approaches. Results: The method accuracy depends on the navigation registration: with a 1–2 mm error it is adequate for the evaluation and comparison of most neurosurgical approaches. The accuracy is comparable to the one obtained with available radiological software. In the anatomy laboratory the method appears versatile. The system can be easily used after brief training. ApproachViewer allows for a real time evaluation and comparison of surgical approaches, as well as post-dissection analyses of collected data. Conclusions: This new research method and software allows visualization, quantification and comparison of neurosurgical approaches in the anatomy laboratory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".