Design of intelligent human-machine collaborative robot-assisted craniotomy system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To develop an intelligent human-machine collaborative control robot-assisted craniotomy system, and test its efficacy by experiments. Methods: The system integrated a UR5 robotic arm (Universal Robots, Denmark), a host computer, a double six-degree-of-freedom force sensor(Nanjing Yuli Instrument Co., Ltd.), a medical drill(AESCULAP®, Germany), a Polaris Optical navigation system(NDI,Canada), with a self-designed navigation procedure and a visual graphical user interface(GUI). According to a preoperative CT and resection plan, the motion of robotic arm can be restricted in a precise and safe area. Through experiments of the 3D-printed skull models and animals (Bama mini pig), we tested the accuracy, efficiency and safety of the robot system. Results: After successfully developed the robot-assisted craniotomy system, we tested the collaborative controlling fluency of robotic arm with the average response time less than 1 s, as well as feedback sensitivity of force sensor with an average result of 60 N and 50 N when drilling on skull models and mini pigs respectively. In addition, compared with "surgeon" group, "robot" group had less average positioning error (1.87 ± 0.66 mm VS 3.14 ± 0.73 mm, P < 0.001) and time spent (6.64 ± 1.15min VS 8.06 ± 1.10min, P = 0.001) in skull model experiments. Also, in mini pig experiments, "robot" group had less average positioning error (3.26 ± 0.51 mm VS 4.39 ± 0.75 mm, P = 0.008) and time spent (11.83 ± 0.92min VS 26.10 ± 1.62min, P < 0.001) compared with "surgeon" group. No matter in skull model experiments or in mini pig experiments, the durations of robot startup and navigation process were not different between the experimental group and control group (3.44 ± 0.98 VS 3.75 ± 1.00min, P = 0.39 [skull model experiments]; 6.42 ± 0.65 VS 7.10 ± 1.12min, P = 0.11 [mini pig experiments]). Because of limited samples, we compared the incidence of tissue injury between "robot" and "surgeon" group jointly (3.8 % [1/26] VS 19.2 % [5/26], P = 0.193). Conclusion: Successfully developed, the human-machine collaborative robot-assisted craniotomy system achieved craniotomy procedure fluently providing a sensitive force feedback to surgeon and did better than manual work by surgeon in accuracy, efficiency and safety. Further experimental research needs to be performed to testify its applicability in neurosurgery in future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".