Robotic Manipulation of Sperm as a Deformable Linear Object
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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$^{\circ }$, a tail curvedness of 0.14$\mu$m$^{-1}$, 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".