Automated End-Effector Alignment in Robotic Micromanipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper alignment of the end-effector is a critical procedure that determines the success of micromanipulation, such as robotic cell manipulation. Presently, end-effector alignment is performed manually and suffers from large misalignment error and inconsistency. Manual alignment often undesirably moves the end-effector (e.g., a glass micropipette) out of the limited field of view under microscopy and risks breaking the fragile end-effector. This article presents automated end-effector alignment in robotic micromanipulation. A rotational degree of freedom was added to a standard micromanipulator with translational degrees of freedom. The kinematic model of end-effector’s rotation was established, and the unknown model parameters were calibrated. To accommodate model uncertainty and parameter variations, a sliding mode controller was designed to achieve end-effector alignment. Experimental results demonstrate that the robotic alignment technique achieved an accuracy of 0.5$\pm 0.3^{\circ }$and a time cost of 17.9$\pm$7.3 s, both significantly less than manual alignment. The developed controller based on kinematic modeling and sliding mode control achieved a higher success rate and significantly less time cost for end-effector alignment than the PID controller. Standard micropipettes were used as the end-effectors for sperm immobilization and oocyte penetration, important procedures in cell surgeries. The success rate of sperm immobilization was 98% by robotic micropipette alignment, higher than the success rate of 90% by manual alignment. Oocyte deformation before penetration was 28.1$\pm$7.5$\mu$m by robotic end-effector alignment, significantly less than the deformation of 54.5$\pm$13.2$\mu$m by manual alignment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".