MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040485413 · doi:10.1177/0954411920936051

Technical report: Rapid intraoperative reconstruction of cranial implants using additively manufactured moulds

2020· article· en· W3040485413 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine Beaulieu, Ryan Alkins, Randy E. Ellis, Manuela Kunz

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCraniotomySkullCranial boneRapid prototypingMedicineImplantCranioplastySurgeryBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During craniotomies, a portion of the calvarium or skull is removed to gain access to the intracranial space. When it is not possible to re-implant the flap, surgeons may repair the defect intraoperatively or at a later date. With larger defects being more difficult to repair intraoperatively, we investigated a method for the creation of patient-specific moulds for ad hoc bone flap reconstruction using rapid prototyping. Patient-specific moulds were created based on light scanned models of the defect, using custom software and rapid prototyping. Polymethylmethacrylate bone implants were created for three retrospective craniotomy cases and evaluated based on original flap and skull reconstruction accuracy. Bone implants created using our moulding method reconstruct the original flap and skull with an average reconstruction accuracy of 0.82 and 1.3 mm, respectively. Average skull reconstruction accuracy obtained by surgeons performing freehand implant reconstruction was 1.49 mm. Time needed to generate moulds was between 2 h and 45 min and 6 h and 20 min. Improvements to current printing technology will make this procedure technically feasible for future cranial procedures.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in MedicineSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207