MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996454452 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2959269

Miniaturized Optical Force Sensor for Minimally Invasive Surgery With Learning-Based Nonlinear Calibration

2019· article· en· W2996454452 on OpenAlexafffund
Naghmeh Bandari, Javad Dargahi, Muthukumaran Packirisamy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsCalibrationMiniaturizationRepeatabilityRADIUSBiomedical engineeringBendingNonlinear systemAcousticsMaterials scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsStructural engineeringPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple and miniaturized optical tactile sensor for integrating with robotic and manual minimally invasive surgery graspers is proposed in this study. For better miniaturization, the sensing principle of constant-bending-radius light intensity modulation was replaced with a variable-bending-radius modulation principle, and the pertinent theoretical formulation was derived. Afterward, a finite element model of the sensor was optimized using response surface optimization technique. The optimized sensor design was 14.0 mm long, 1.8 mm wide and 4 mm high. Next, the sensor was prototyped using SLA 3D printing technique. Also, the sensor was calibrated using a rate-dependent learning-based support-vector-regression algorithm. Calibration was 96% linear with a goodness-of-fit of 93% and mean absolute error of 0.085±0.096 N. Furthermore, the sensor was tested under cyclic triangular compression with a 3 sec pause between loading and unloading as well as manual grasping. Mean absolute error of 0.12±0.08 N, the minimum force of 0.14 N, and repeatability of 0.07 N showed the acceptable performance of the proposed sensor for surgical applications. Moreover, the sensor showed the capability of working under combined dynamic and static loading conditions with low hysteresis, i.e., 0.057 N/cycle.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207