MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392620507 · doi:10.1049/htl2.12083

Calibration‐free structured‐light‐based 3D scanning system in laparoscope for robotic surgery

2024· article· en· W4392620507 on OpenAlexaff
Ryo Furukawa, Elvis C. S. Chen, Ryusuke Sagawa, Shiro Oka, Hiroshi Kawasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Technology Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNew Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization
KeywordsProjectorComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLaparoscopesRobotRendering (computer graphics)3D reconstructionStructured light

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate 3D shape measurement is crucial for surgical support and alignment in robotic surgery systems. Stereo cameras in laparoscopes offer a potential solution; however, their accuracy in stereo image matching diminishes when the target image has few textures. Although stereo matching with deep learning has gained significant attention, supervised learning requires a large dataset of images with depth annotations, which are scarce for laparoscopes. Thus, there is a strong demand to explore alternative methods for depth reconstruction or annotation for laparoscopes. Active stereo techniques are a promising approach for achieving 3D reconstruction without textures. In this study, a 3D shape reconstruction method is proposed using an ultra-small patterned projector attached to a laparoscopic arm to address these issues. The pattern projector emits a structured light with a grid-like pattern that features node-wise modulation for positional encoding. To scan the target object, multiple images are taken while the projector is in motion, and the relative poses of the projector and a camera are auto-calibrated using a differential rendering technique. In the experiment, the proposed method is evaluated by performing 3D reconstruction using images obtained from a surgical robot and comparing the results with a ground-truth shape obtained from X-ray CT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Technology LettersSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207