MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2630904077 · doi:10.1115/1.4037053

Review of Kinematics for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Tele-Echography Robots

2017· article· en· W2630904077 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laurence Nouaille, Med Amine Laribi, Carl A. Nelson, Saïd Zeghloul, Gérard Poisson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheEuropean CommissionUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsKinematicsRobotRoboticsConstraint (computer-aided design)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceRobot kinematicsHuman–computer interactionSimulationEngineeringMobile robotMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the survey of kinematic structures adapted to specific medical robots: minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and tele-echography. The large diversity of kinematic architectures that can be found in medical robotics leads us to perform a statistical analysis to inform and guide design of medical robots. Safety constraints and some considerations in design evolution of medical robots are presented in this paper. First, we describe the spectrum of medical robots in minimally invasive surgery and tele-echography applications and particularly the variety of kinematic architectures used. We present the robots and their kinematic architectures and highlight differences that occur in each medical application. We perform a statistical analysis which can serve as a resource in topological synthesis for each specific medical application. Safety is an important specification in medical robotics, and for that reason we show the means used to take into account this constraint. This study demonstrates that the nature of medical robots implies specific requirements leading to different kinematic structures. The statistical analysis gives information on choice of kinematic structures for medical applications (minimally invasive surgery and echography). The safety constraint as well as the interaction between doctor and robot leads to investigate new mechanical solutions to enhance medical robot safety and compliance. We expect that this paper will serve as a significant resource and help the design of future medical robots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207