MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411485151 · doi:10.1109/ojim.2025.3581634

Integrating Confidence Maps and Visual Servoing for Needle Tracking in Robotic US-Guided Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

2025· article· en· W4411485151 on OpenAlexafffund
Hoorieh Mazdarani, James H. Watterson, Rebecca Hibbert, Carlos Rossa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Instrumentation and Measurement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPercutaneous nephrolithotomyVisual servoingTracking (education)Computer visionLithotomy positionMedicineArtificial intelligencePercutaneousRadiologyComputer scienceSurgeryRobotPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a minimally invasive procedure to remove large kidney stones through an incision in the patient’s back. PCNL requires a high level of dexterity to steer a surgical tool while visualizing it using ultrasound images. A robotic system that controls the ultrasound probe to automatically image the tool would alleviate the surgeon’s cognitive workload and potentially lead to more accurate kidney access. We propose a novel algorithm that combines visual servoing and confidence maps to track the position of a manually steered needle using a robotically actuated ultrasound probe. The algorithm automatically adjusts the position of the ultrasound probe so that the same longitudinal portion of the needle shaft is visible in the image, while simultaneously ensuring acoustic contact between the ultrasound probe and the tissue over uneven surfaces. Unlike previous methods, where confidence maps were used for probe positioning with static targets, this paper introduces the first unified algorithm that optimizes image quality while tracking a moving tool. It ensures continuous probe-tissue contact on uneven surfaces and does not require prior knowledge of the needle’s trajectory or additional sensors. The algorithm, evaluated in phantom tissue and in a realistic kidney mannequin, shows an average tool tracking accuracy of 1.65 mm and 1.17 mm, respectively, confirming its ability to reliably track a manually inserted tool during PCNL.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Journal of Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207