MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390969193 · doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3355729

Multi-Axis Force Sensing in Laparoscopic Surgery

2024· article· en· W4390969193 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir Hossein Hadi Hosseinabadi, David Black, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransducerDeflection (physics)CalibrationStiffnessPressure sensorAcousticsSurgical instrumentCannulaTorqueEngineeringMechanical engineeringSimulationStructural engineeringOpticsElectrical engineeringPhysicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter presents a novel approach to multi-axis force-sensing in laparoscopic surgery. It requires no modification to the surgical instrument and is therefore adaptable to different surgical tools. The sensing approach relies on a novel cannula design and utilizes a very high-resolution transducer for deflection measurement at the proximal shaft of the surgical instrument. The proposed cannula has an inner tube and an outer tube; the inner tube is attached to the cannula's interface to the robot frame through a compliant leaf spring with adjustable stiffness. It allows bending of the instrument shaft due to the tip forces. The outer tube mechanically filters out the body forces so they do not affect the instrument's bending behavior. An optical transducer with integrated electronics was mounted onto the proximal shaft of a da Vinci EndoWrist. A mathematical model of the sensing system was developed. A setup was built for calibration and testing, and its hardware and software are discussed in detail. Model-based and data-driven calibration approaches were compared. Comprehensive testing was conducted to validate that the sensor can successfully measure the lateral forces and moments and the axial torque applied to the instrument's distal end within the desired resolution, accuracy, and range requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207