MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220766453 · doi:10.1109/tro.2022.3158200

Robotic Manipulation of Sperm as a Deformable Linear Object

2022· article· en· W4220766453 on OpenAlexafffund
Changsheng Dai, Guanqiao Shan, Hang Liu, Changhai Ru, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionSpermController (irrigation)KinematicsRotation (mathematics)MathematicsPhysicsBiologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The robotic manipulation of deformable linear objects is a classic and challenging topic. Apart from synthetic objects, such as wires and cables, linear objects are also commonly found in biological cells and organisms. Biomanipulation of such objects is hampered by difficulties, such as limited degrees of freedom of micromanipulators and varied mechanical properties of the biological entities to manipulate. This article presents a robotic manipulation of human sperm, which are deformable cells with a linear shape. The shape and movement of the cell are recapitulated by our developed geometric and kinematic models. Under unfixed constraints between the end-effector and the cell, path planning is designed to update the manipulation point to control cell deformation. A state transition function is formulated in path planning to handle the stiffness variations of sperm without force sensing. A model-predictive controller is designed to minimize the orientation error and manipulation path length. To detect sperm tail for visual feedback, an accuracy of 98% was achieved via deep neural networks. The robotic manipulation of human sperm was performed using a standard clinical setup of a glass micropipette to rotate a sperm to the target orientation. Experimental results showed that robotic sperm rotation achieved an orientation error of 0.8 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$^{\circ }$</tex-math></inline-formula> , a tail curvedness of 0.14 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\mu$</tex-math></inline-formula> m <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$^{-1}$</tex-math></inline-formula> , and an operation time of 5.6 s, all significantly less than those of the manual approach. The less orientation error and tail curvedness after robotic rotation led to a significantly lower speed of sperm entering the micropipette during sperm aspiration, resulting in a higher success rate of 97% (versus 76% after manual rotation) for aspiration control.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207