MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979939676 · doi:10.1049/htl.2019.0094

Marker‐less real‐time intra‐operative camera and hand‐eye calibration procedure for surgical augmented reality

2019· article· en· W2979939676 on OpenAlexaff
Megha Kalia, Prateek Mathur, Nassir Navab, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Technology Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAugmented realityEndoscopeCalibrationRendering (computer graphics)Transformation matrixCamera resectioningOffset (computer science)Camera auto-calibrationComputer graphics (images)MathematicsSurgeryMedicinePhysicsKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate medical Augmented Reality (AR) rendering requires two calibrations, a camera intrinsic matrix estimation and a hand-eye transformation. We present a unified, practical, marker-less, real-time system to estimate both these transformations during surgery. For camera calibration we perform calibrations at multiple distances from the endoscope, pre-operatively, to parametrize the camera intrinsic matrix as a function of distance from the endoscope. Then, we retrieve the camera parameters intra-operatively by estimating the distance of the surgical site from the endoscope in less than 1 s. Unlike in prior work, our method does not require the endoscope to be taken out of the patient; for the hand-eye calibration, as opposed to conventional methods that require the identification of a marker, we make use of a rendered tool-tip in 3D. As the surgeon moves the instrument and observes the offset between the actual and the rendered tool-tip, they can select points of high visual error and manually bring the instrument tip to match the virtual rendered tool tip. To evaluate the hand-eye calibration, 5 subjects carried out the hand-eye calibration procedure on a da Vinci robot. Average Target Registration Error of approximately 7mm was achieved with just three data points.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Technology LettersSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207