Robotic Orientation Control of Deformable Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic manipulation of deformable objects (vs. rigid objects) has been a classic topic in robotics. Compared to deformable synthetic objects such as rubber balls and clothes, biological cells are highly deformable and more prone to damage. This paper presents robotic manipulation of deformable cells for orientation control (both out-of-plane and in-plane), which is required in both clinical (e.g., in vitro fertilization) and biomedical (e.g., clone) applications. Compared to manual cell rotation control based on empirical experience, the robotic approach, based on mathematical modeling and path planning, effectively rotates a cell while consistently maintaining minimal cell deformation to avoid cell damage. A force model is established to determine the minimal force applied by the micropipette to rotate a spherical or more generally, an ellipsoidal mouse oocyte. The force information is translated into indentation through a contact mechanics model, and the manipulation path of the micropipette is formed by connecting the indentation positions on the oocyte. A compensation controller is designed to compensate for the variations of mechanical properties across cells. The polar body of an oocyte is detected by deep neural networks with robustness to shape and size differences. Experimental results demonstrate that the system achieved an accuracy of 97.6% in polar body detection and an accuracy of 0.7° in oocyte orientation control with maximum oocyte deformation of 2.69 μm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".