Optimal configurations of an electromagnetic tracking system for 3D ultrasound imaging of pediatric hips – A phantom study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracking the position and orientation of a two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound scanner to reconstruct a 3D volume is common, and its accuracy is important. In this study, a specific miniaturized electromagnetic (EM) tracking system was selected and integrated with a 2D ultrasound scanner, which was aimed to capture hip displacement in children with cerebral palsy. The objective of this study was to determine the optimum configuration, including the distance between the EM source and sensor, to provide maximum accuracy. The scanning volume was aimed to be 320 mm × 320 mm × 76 mm. The accuracy of the EM tracking was evaluated by comparing its tracking with those from a motion capture camera system. A static experiment showed that a warm-up time of 20 min was needed. The EM system provided the highest precision of 0.07 mm and 0.01° when the distance between the EM source and sensor was 0.65 m. Within the testing volume, the maximum position and rotational errors were 2.31 mm and 1.48°, respectively. The maximum error of measuring hip displacement on the 3D hip phantom study was 4 %. Based on the test results, the tested EM system was suitable for 3D ultrasound imaging of pediatric hips to assess hip displacement when optimal configuration was used.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".