MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3012148601 · doi:10.1117/12.2547388

Miniature C-arm simulator using wireless accelerometer based tracking

2020· article· en· W3012148601 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel R. Allen, John Moore, Abigayel Joschko, Collin Clarke, Terry M. Peters, Elvis C. S. Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulationComputer scienceAccelerometerTracking (education)Tracking systemTraining systemArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C-Arm positioning for interventional spine procedures can often be associated with a steep learning curve. The current training standards involve using real X-rays on cadavers or via apprenticeship-based programs. To help limit excess radiation exposure, several radiation-free training systems have been proposed in the literature but there lacks a hands-on, cost-effective simulator that does not require access to a physical C-Arm. In order to expand the accessibility of radiation-free C-Arm training, we have developed a 10:1 scaled down C-Arm simulator using 3D-printed parts and wireless accelerometers for tracking. We generated Digitally Reconstructed Radiographs (DRRs) in real-time using a 1-dimensional transfer function operating on a ray-traced projection of a patient CT scan. To evaluate the efficacy of the system as a training tool, we conducted a user study in which anesthesiology and orthopedic residents were evaluated on the accuracy of their C-Arm placement for three standard views used in spinal injection procedures. Both the experimental group and control group were given the same evaluation task with the experimental group receiving 5 minutes of training on the system using real-time DRRs and a standardized two page curriculum on proper image acquisition. The experimental group achieved an angular error of 4.76±1.66° which was lower than the control group at 6.88±3.67° and the overall feedback of the system was positive based on a Likert scale questionnaire filled out by each participant. The results indicate that our system has high potential for improving C-Arm placement in interventional spine procedures and we plan to conduct a follow-up study to evaluate the long-term training capabilities of the simulator.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurgical Simulation and Training→French-language works237,207→