MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127535820 · doi:10.1155/2021/6640031

A Historical Review of Medical Robotic Platforms

2021· review· en· W3127535820 on OpenAlexafffund
Tirth Ginoya, Yaser Maddahi, Kourosh Zareinia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Robotics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTimelineComputer scienceRobotField (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a brief history of medical robotic systems. Since the first use of robots in medical procedures, there have been countless companies competing to developed robotic systems in hopes to dominate a field. Many companies have succeeded, and many have failed. This review paper shows the timeline history of some of the old and most successful medical robots and new robotic systems. As the patents of the most successful system, i.e., Da Vinci® Surgical System, have expired or are expiring soon, this paper can provide some insights for new designers and manufacturers to explore new opportunities in this field.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of RoboticsSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207