MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790279171 · doi:10.1142/s2424905x18410039

Switched-Impedance Control of Surgical Robots in Teleoperated Beating-Heart Surgery

2018· article· en· W2790279171 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingbo Cheng, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Robotics Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsTeleoperationRobotImpedance controlHaptic technologySimulationSurgical robotRobotic surgeryComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel switched-impedance control method is proposed and implemented for telerobotic beating-heart surgery. Differing from cardiopulmonary-bypass-based arrested-heart surgery, beating-heart surgery creates challenges for the human operator (surgeon) due to the heart’s fast motions and, in the case of a teleoperated surgical robot, the oscillatory haptic feedback to the operator. This paper designs two switched reference impedance models for the master and slave robots to achieve both motion compensation and nonoscillatory force feedback during slave–heart interaction. By changing the parameters of the impedance models, different performances for both robots are obtained: (a) when the slave robot does not make contact with the beating heart, the slave robot closely follows the motion of the master robot as in a regular teleoperation system, (b) when contact occurs, the slave robot automatically compensates for the fast motions of the beating heart while the human operator perceives the nonoscillatory component of the slave–heart interaction forces, creating the feeling of making contact with an idle heart for the human operator. The proposed method is validated through simulations and experiments.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Robotics ResearchSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207