MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411497564 · doi:10.1142/s2424905x25500102

CRONOS: A Continuum Robot for Neurovascular Surgery — Design, Development, and Feasibility Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4411497564 on OpenAlexaff
Thais Baena Moura, Arturo Consoli, Reinhard M. Grassmann, Greta Zogaj, Nicole M Cancelliere, Jessica Burgner-Kahrs, Vítor Mendes Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Robotics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleRobotMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceSurgeryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents the design, development, and evaluation of a continuum robot for neurovascular surgery (CRONOS), addressing the lack of commercially available robots specifically designed for neurointervention. As the field evolves, assessing the feasibility of robot-assisted procedures, particularly for remote stroke treatment, is crucial. Designed for research purposes, CRONOS aims to explore the feasibility of such procedures. It features a trajectory planner, an open-source 3D-printed design, and independent control of three devices, providing four degrees of freedom. The system enables millimeter control and remote operation via a client–server network. To assess functionality, we simulated three stroke cases using a virtual system, categorizing data by operation mode: manual, robotic training, and robotic experiments. The robot was locally controlled via CAN bus during training and remotely operated in the experimental phase. Key performance metrics, including procedure success rate, device translation, and fluoroscopy time (FT), were compared to manual operations. The robotic system significantly reduced device translation, with robotic experiments showing a 52.2% decrease compared to manual mode. FT showed variability across modes, though manual procedures had the lowest values, with only a 9.7% difference from robotic experiments. These findings suggest that robot-assisted neurovascular interventions can enhance procedural control while maintaining comparable FT outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.261
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Robotics ResearchSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207