MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154447333 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.10428

Skull Localization using Ultrasound for Navigated Neurosurgery

2018· article· en· W3154447333 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grace Underwood

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSkullImage registrationPointer (user interface)UltrasoundProcess (computing)RadiologyMedicineSurgeryImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided navigation for neurosurgery requires accurate localization of the skull. Localization can be problematic when the patient is in a facedown position. The posterior skull lacks unique identifiable landmarks, which complicates standard localization methods using a tracked pointer. In addition to the lack of anatomical landmarks, trying to access facial surfaces is error-prone when working under the table and problems arise with line-of-sight of the optical tracker. We proposed the use of ultrasound to perform localization and investigated the accuracy of this process. A simulation study was performed to test the feasibility of ultrasound for localization on a plastic skull. An initial localization, using an optically tracked pointer, was performed to partially align pre-operative images and the skull model. Skull surface points were localized by optically tracked ultrasound and used in a surface registration algorithm. Accuracy and reproducibility was then investigated. Evaluation of the proposed localization method found that the average distance of points off the skull surface was 0.6 ± 0.1mm, which meets the same standards set by current commercially available systems for face-up positions. Using tracked ultrasound for registration is feasible for patients in facedown position. We provided a non-invasive method of registration that could be accomplished using one optical tracking camera, and maintains a constant line-of-sight. This project was performed in cooperation with Dr. Gernot Kronreif and the Austrian Center for Medical Innovation and Technology. Dr. Kronreif and his staff are preparing for a clinical test of this localization process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207