On integration of a novel minimally invasive surgery robotic system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today's laparoscopic surgeon performs laparoscopic surgery by inserting two or three long tools into the patient's abdominal. Surgeon relies on the image captured by a laparoscope that is also inserted into the patient's abdominal. It is common to have a surgical assistant holding the laparoscope and taking directions from the main surgeon on how to move it to keep the surgical tools within the view. However, timely, accurate, and stable adjustments of the laparoscope cannot be guaranteed in lengthy operations due to the fatigue of human assistant. We proposed a novel new design by replacing the human assistant with a spherical wrist mechanism robot. In addition, for developing a fully surgeon-based automatic integrated system, an automatic tracking and gesture recognizing sub-system is developed. The automatic tracking sub-system tracks the tip of a surgical tool and moves the laparoscope holding robot to keep the tool within the camera view. The gesture recognizing sub-system helps surgeon retrieve critical medical records of the patient instantly by recognizing surgical tool gestures performed by surgeon
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it