Definitions of Computer-Assisted Surgery and Intervention, Image-Guided Surgery and Intervention, Hybrid Operating Room, and Guidance Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus definitions of image-guided surgery, computer-assisted surgery, hybrid operating room, and surgical navigation systems. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of minimally invasive procedures has increased tremendously over the past 2 decades, but terminology related to image-guided minimally invasive procedures has not been standardized, which is a barrier to clear communication. METHODS: Experts in image-guided techniques and specialized engineers were invited to engage in a systematic process to develop consensus definitions of the key terms listed above. The process was designed following review of common consensus-development methodologies and included participation in 4 online surveys and a post-surveys face-to-face panel meeting held in Strasbourg, France. RESULTS: The experts settled on the terms computer-assisted surgery and intervention, image-guided surgery and intervention, hybrid operating room, and guidance systems and agreed-upon definitions of these terms, with rates of consensus of more than 80% for each term. The methodology used proved to be a compelling strategy to overcome the current difficulties related to data growth rates and technological convergence in this field. CONCLUSIONS: Our multidisciplinary collaborative approach resulted in consensus definitions that may improve communication, knowledge transfer, collaboration, and research in the rapidly changing field of image-guided minimally invasive techniques.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it