Image-Guided Interventional Robotics: Lost in Translation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interventional robotic systems have been deployed with all existing imaging modalities in an expansive portfolio of therapies and surgeries. Over the years, literature reviews have painted a comprehensive portrait of the translation of the underlying technology from research to practice. While many of these robots performed promisingly in preclinical settings, only a handful of them managed to evolve further, break through the commercialization boundary, and even fewer reached a wide-scale adoption. Despite the undeniable success of service robotics in general and particularly in some sophisticated medical applications, image-guided robotics’ impact remained modest compared to other surgical areas, especially laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery. This article aims to embrace the state of the art on the one hand, provide a comprehensive narrative of the situation described, support future system developers, and facilitate the translation from scientific research to applied clinical technology development.
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 | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".