MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Precision ZP Perforation Automation: A Vision-Based Robotic Approach for Blastocyst Embryo Biopsy

2024· article· en· W4402264071 on OpenAlexaff
Ihab Abu Ajamieh, Mohammad Al Janaideh, James K. Mills

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystAutomationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceEmbryoPerforationEngineeringBiologyEmbryogenesisCell biologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microsurgical operations such as embryo biopsy require extracting a material sample from inside the embryo for genetic testing. A precise perforation for embryo zona pellucida (ZP) is required to permit access for the biopsy micropipette to extract the sample. Many approaches have been developed for the ZP perforation, such as mechanical, chemical, and photothermolysis (the laser). This paper presents an automatic method for the blastocyst embryo ZP perforation. This method utilizes a conventional laser system currently in use in manual approaches in research labs and in-vitro fertilization clinics and controls the whole perforation process using a vision feedback system. An experimental setup is developed to verify the behavior of the proposed method, in which a holding micropipette is used to hold and move the embryo, which is then moved in two coordinate directions toward the laser spot location. A computer vision algorithm is used to estimate the embryo ZP thickness to tune the laser parameters and estimate the ZP circle median quadrant coordinates. Then use this information as a feedback signal to a simple proportional controller to control the embryo motion. Experimental results demonstrate that the system is capable of embryo relocation and ZP perforation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207