GP.01 Quantification of computational geometric congruence in surface-based registration for spinal intra-operative three-dimensional navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Computer-assisted navigation (CAN) may guide spinal instrumentation, and requires alignment of patient anatomy to imaging. Iterative-Closest-Point algorithms register anatomical and imaging datasets, which may fail in the presence of significant geometric congruence leading to inaccurate navigation. We computationally quantify geometric congruence in posterior spinal exposures, and identify predictors of potential navigation inaccuracy. Methods: Midline posterior exposures were performed from C1-S1 in four human cadavers. An optically-based CAN generated surface maps of the posterior elements at each level. Maps were reconstructed to include bilateral hemilamina, or unilateral hemilamina with/without the base of the spinous process. Maps were fitted to symmetrical geometries (cylindrical/spherical/planar) using computational modelling, and the degree of model fit quantified. Results: Increased cylindrical/spherical/planar symmetry was seen in the subaxial cervical spine relative to the high-cervical and thoracolumbar spine (p<0.001). Inclusion of the base of the spinous process decreased symmetry independent of spinal level (p<0.001). Registration with bilateral vs. unilateral hemilamina did not significantly reduce geometric symmetry. Conclusions: Geometric congruence is most evident at C1 and the subaxial cervical spine, warranting greater vigilance in navigation accuracy verification. At all levels, inclusion of the base of the spinous process in unilateral registration decreases the likelihood of geometric symmetry and navigation 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".