Visuotactile Sensor Enabled Pneumatic Device Towards Compliant Oropharyngeal Swab Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual oropharyngeal (OP) swab sampling is an intensive and risky task. In this article, a novel OP swab sampling device of low cost and high compliance is designed by combining the visuotactile sensor and the pneumatic actuator-based gripper. Here, a concave visuotactile sensor called CoTac is first proposed to address the problems of high cost and poor reliability of traditional multi-axis force sensors. Besides, by imitating the doctor's fingers, a soft pneumatic actuator with a rigid skeleton structure is designed, which is demonstrated to be reliable and safe via finite element modeling and experiments. Furthermore, we propose a sampling method that adopts a compliant control algorithm based on the adaptive virtual force to enhance the safety and compliance of the swab sampling process. The effectiveness of the device has been verified through sampling experiments as well as in vivo tests, indicating great application potential. The cost of the device is around 30 US dollars and the total weight of the functional part is less than 0.1 kg, allowing the device to be rapidly deployed on various robotic arms.
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 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 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".