Assessment of the Accuracy of Optical Shape Sensing for Needle Tracking Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate needle guidance is essential for a number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided percutaneous procedures, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of metastatic liver tumors. A promising technology to obtain real-time tracking of the shape and tip of a needle is by using high-frequency (up to 20 kHz) fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors embedded in optical fibers, which are insensitive to external magnetic fields. We fabricated an MRI-compatible needle designed for percutaneous procedures with a series of FBG sensors which would be tracked in an image-guidance system, allowing to display the needle shape within a navigation image. A series of phantom experiments demonstrated needle tip tracking errors of 1.05 ± 0.08 mm for a needle deflection up to 16.82 mm on a ground-truth model and showed nearly similar accuracy to electromagnetic (EM) tracking (i.e., 0.89 ± 0.09 mm). We demonstrated feasibility of the FBG-based tracking system for MRI-guided interventions with differences under 1 mm between tracking systems. This study establishes the needle tracking accuracy of FBG needle tracking for image-guided 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".