MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214395181 · doi:10.1109/ius52206.2021.9593407

Accuracy of Position and Pose Estimates of Ultrasound Probe Relative to Bony Anatomy

2021· article· en· W3214395181 on OpenAlexafffundabout
L Maclean, Antony J. Hodgson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPosition (finance)Computer scienceUltrasoundPoseRoboticsOrientation (vector space)Point (geometry)3D ultrasoundRobotAcousticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many procedures in orthopedic surgery rely on navigation to accurately place instrumentation. These methods include fluoroscopic, stereotactic and robotic approaches. While contemporary systems have been successful at dramatically lowering reoperation rates, they may not always be available due to their significant costs ($850,000-$1,200,000) or appropriate due to their ionizing radiation. There is an interest in developing lower-cost, radiation-free, and accurate navigation. We propose to address this issue using ultrasound measured distances to nearby bone surfaces. Distances can be processed by a state-estimation algorithm to determine the position and pose of the probe relative to a preoperative CT scan. Recent studies have shown that ultrasound can accurately identify bone surfaces, and algorithms based on range measurements are used for accurate localization in mobile robotics. This study evaluates the feasibility of combining these techniques to make sufficient position and pose measurements in an anatomically realistic model. We assessed position and pose estimation accuracy in a simplified 2D space using a linear 2D ultrasound (L-14W/60, Ultrasonix Corp., Canada) to image (1) an adult L4 vertebra model (∼80 mm across), and (2) a set of ‘V’ shapes characterized by their internal angle. The probe was immersed in a water bath at ten different positions and orientations and images were acquired. The US probe position was measured using an NDI Vega optical tracker (Northern Digital Inc., Canada). The images were manually segmented and distance measurements to the model surface computed. We used a multistart interior point optimization algorithm to compute a position and pose that minimized an objective function based on the average squared distances between the predicted and measured distances to the model surface. We then computed the errors relative to the position reported by the optical tracker. The mean localization error of the probe around the anatomically-realistic model was 0.7mm in translation and 2° in rotation. The algorithm obtained similar errors within a range of initial position estimates of up to 12 mm and 20° from the true position. Errors in the parametric study decreased from 1.65 mm and 3.8° for a ‘V’ angle of 90° to 0.3 mm and 0.5° for a ‘V’ angle of 150°. These accuracies suggest that the proposed technique is sufficiently accurate to justify further development. Limitations include the use of a conventional 2D US probe, the 2D plane scenario rather than the real 3D use case, and the use of manual bone segmentation as opposed to an automated algorithm. Future work is planned to address these limitations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207