MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104270610 · doi:10.3389/frobt.2020.594673

COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs Medical Telerobotic Systems: A Survey of Applications Requiring Physiological Organ Motion Compensation

2020· review· en· W3104270610 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingbo Cheng, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Robotics and AI · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPandemicTeleoperationTelemedicineComputer scienceTeleroboticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DistancingHealth careRobotMedicineArtificial intelligenceDiseaseMobile robotInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in public health interventions such as physical distancing restrictions to limit the spread and transmission of the novel coronavirus, causing significant effects on the delivery of physical healthcare procedures worldwide. The unprecedented pandemic spurs strong demand for intelligent robotic systems in healthcare. In particular, medical telerobotic systems can play a positive role in the provision of telemedicine to both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Different from typical studies on medical teleoperation that consider problems such as time delay and information loss in long-distance communication, this survey addresses the consequences of physiological organ motion when using teleoperation systems to create physical distancing between clinicians and patients in the COVID-19 era. We focus on the control-theoretic approaches that have been developed to address inherent robot control issues associated with organ motion. The state-of-the-art telerobotic systems and their applications in COVID-19 healthcare delivery are reviewed, and possible future directions are outlined.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Robotics and AISame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207