MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772030069 · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx576

Robotic Stereotaxy in Cranial Neurosurgery: A Qualitative Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2772030069 on OpenAlexaff
Anton Fomenko, Demitre Serletis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoelectroencephalographyMedicineStereotaxyMedical physicsDeep brain stimulationStereotactic surgeryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHaptic technologySurgeryEpilepsy surgeryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Modern-day stereotactic techniques have evolved to tackle the neurosurgical challenge of accurately and reproducibly accessing specific brain targets. Neurosurgical advances have been made in synergy with sophisticated technological developments and engineering innovations such as automated robotic platforms. Robotic systems offer a unique combination of dexterity, durability, indefatigability, and precision. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of robotic integration for cranial stereotactic guidance in neurosurgery. Specifically, we comprehensively analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a spectrum of robotic technologies, past and present, including details pertaining to each system's kinematic specifications and targeting accuracy profiles. METHODS: Eligible articles on human clinical applications of cranial robotic-guided stereotactic systems between 1985 and 2017 were extracted from several electronic databases, with a focus on stereotactic biopsy procedures, stereoelectroencephalography, and deep brain stimulation electrode insertion. RESULTS: Cranial robotic stereotactic systems feature serial or parallel architectures with 4 to 7 degrees of freedom, and frame-based or frameless registration. Indications for robotic assistance are diversifying, and include stereotactic biopsy, deep brain stimulation and stereoelectroencephalography electrode placement, ventriculostomy, and ablation procedures. Complication rates are low, and mainly consist of hemorrhage. Newer systems benefit from increasing targeting accuracy, intraoperative imaging ability, improved safety profiles, and reduced operating times. CONCLUSION: We highlight emerging future directions pertaining to the integration of robotic technologies into future neurosurgical procedures. Notably, a trend toward miniaturization, cost-effectiveness, frameless registration, and increasing safety and accuracy characterize successful stereotactic robotic technologies.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207