A magnetic resonance conditional robot for lumbar spinal injection: Development and preliminary validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work presents the design and preliminary validation of a Magnetic Resonance (MR) conditional robot for lumbar injection for the treatment of lower back pain. METHODS: This is a 4-degree-of-freedom (DOF) robot that is 200 × 230 × 130 mm3 in volume and has a mass of 0.8 kg. Its lightweight and compact features allow it to be directly affixed to patient's back, establishing a rigid connection, thus reducing positional errors caused by patient movements during treatment. RESULTS: To validate the positioning accuracy of the needle by the robot, an electromagnetic (EM) tracking system and a needle with an EM sensor embedded in the tip were used for the free space evaluation with position accuracy of 0.88 ± 0.46 mm and phantom mock insertions using the Loop-X CBCT scanner with target position accuracy of 3.62 ± 0.92 mm. CONCLUSION: Preliminary experiments demonstrated that the proposed robot showed improvements and benefits in its rotation range, flexible needle adjustment, and sensor protection compared with previous and existing systems, offering broader clinical applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".