Reflectance outperforms force and position in model-free needle puncture detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surgical procedure of needle thoracostomy temporarily corrects accidental over-pressurization of the space between the chest wall and the lungs. However, failure rates of up to 94.1% have been reported, likely because this procedure is done blind: operators estimate by feel when the needle has reached its target. We believe instrumented needles could help operators discern entry into the target space, but limited success has been achieved using force and/or position to try to discriminate needle puncture events during simulated surgical procedures. We thus augmented our needle insertion system with a novel in-bore double-fiber optical setup. Tissue reflectance measurements as well as 3D force, torque, position, and orientation were recorded while two experimenters repeatedly inserted a bevel-tipped percutaneous needle into ex vivo porcine ribs. We applied model-free puncture detection to various filtered time derivatives of each sensor data stream offline. In the held-out test set of insertions, puncture-detection precision improved substantially using reflectance measurements compared to needle insertion force alone (3.3-fold increase) or position alone (11.6-fold increase).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".