Image-Guided Interventional Robotics: Lost in Translation?
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
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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