Preclinical Performance Evaluation of a Robotic Endoscope for Non-Contact Laser Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite great efforts, transoral robotic laser surgery has not been established clinically. Patient benefits are yet to be proven to accept shortcomings of robotic systems. In particular, laryngeal reachability and transition from microscope to accurate endoscopic laser ablation have not been achieved. We have addressed those challenges with a highly integrated robotic endoscope for non-contact endolaryngeal laser surgery. The current performance status has been assessed in multi-level user studies. In addition, the system was deployed to an ex vivo porcine larynx. The robotic design comprises an extensible continuum manipulator with multifunctional tip. The latter features laser optics, stereo vision, and illumination. Vision-based performance assessment is derived from depth estimation and scene tracking. Novices and experts (n = 20) conducted teleoperated delineation tasks to mimic laser ablation of delicate anatomy. Delineation with motion-compensated and raw endoscopic visualisation was carried out on planar and non-planar nominal patterns. Root mean square tracing errors of less than 0.75 mm were feasible with task completion times below 45 s. Relevant anatomy in the porcine larynx was exposed successfully. Accuracy and usability of the integrated platform bear potential for dexterous laser manipulation in clinical settings. Cadaver and in vivo animal studies may translate ex vivo findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".