Design and validation of an open-source library of dynamic reference frames for research and education in optical tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic reference frames (DRFs) are a common component of modern surgical tracking systems; however, the limited number of commercially available DRFs poses a constraint in developing systems, especially for research and education. This work presents the design and validation of a large, open-source library of DRFs compatible with passive, single-face tracking systems, such as Polaris stereoscopic infrared trackers (NDI, Waterloo, Ontario). An algorithm was developed to create new DRF designs consistent with intra- and intertool design constraints and convert to computer-aided design (CAD) files suitable for three-dimensional printing. A library of 10 such groups, each with 6 to 10 DRFs, was produced and tracking performance was validated in comparison to a standard commercially available reference, including pivot calibration, fiducial registration error (FRE), and target registration error (TRE). Pivot tests showed calibration error [Formula: see text], indistinguishable from the reference. FRE was [Formula: see text], and TRE in a CT head phantom was [Formula: see text], both equivalent to the reference. The library of DRFs offers a useful resource for surgical navigation research and could be extended to other tracking systems and alternative design constraints.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".