MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747361908 · doi:10.1049/htl.2017.0063

Intra‐operative ultrasound‐based augmented reality guidance for laparoscopic surgery

2017· article· en· W2747361908 on OpenAlexafffund
Rohit Singla, Philip Edgcumbe, Philip Pratt, Christopher Nguan, Robert Rohling

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Technology Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAugmented realityNephrectomyComputer-assisted surgeryMedicineUltrasoundRobotStandard deviationComputer scienceNavigation systemSurgeryComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRadiologyKidneyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In laparoscopic surgery, the surgeon must operate with a limited field of view and reduced depth perception. This makes spatial understanding of critical structures difficult, such as an endophytic tumour in a partial nephrectomy. Such tumours yield a high complication rate of 47%, and excising them increases the risk of cutting into the kidney's collecting system. To overcome these challenges, an augmented reality guidance system is proposed. Using intra‐operative ultrasound, a single navigation aid, and surgical instrument tracking, four augmentations of guidance information are provided during tumour excision. Qualitative and quantitative system benefits are measured in simulated robot‐assisted partial nephrectomies. Robot‐to‐camera calibration achieved a total registration error of 1.0 ± 0.4 mm while the total system error is 2.5 ± 0.5 mm. The system significantly reduced healthy tissue excised from an average (±standard deviation) of 30.6 ± 5.5 to 17.5 ± 2.4 cm 3 ( p < 0.05) and reduced the depth from the tumor underside to cut from an average (±standard deviation) of 10.2 ± 4.1 to 3.3 ± 2.3 mm ( p < 0.05). Further evaluation is required in vivo, but the system has promising potential to reduce the amount of healthy parenchymal tissue excised.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Technology LettersSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207