Image-Guided Surgical Planning for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using CTRs: A Phantom-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we validate the effectiveness of the optimal planning algorithms we have developed for devising surgical plans for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using patient-specific Concentric-Tube Robots (CTRs). To do so, we built a life-sized phantom model of the right hemithorax, replicating the anatomy of a patient who suffered from kidney stone and underwent conventional PCNL. Two-dimensional CT scans of the phantom model and its 3D reconstruction enabled the creation of a surgical plan using our planning algorithms based on a puncture into the mid-pole of the kidney. This was compared with two other percutaneous tracts involving punctures into the lower and upper calyces for comparison. The optimal mid-pole plan achieved 84% stone coverage, significantly outperforming the lower pole (58%) and upper pole (45%) plans. These results validate the effectiveness of the algorithms and align with simulation-based findings from previous studies, which reported an average volume coverage of 81.6±19.6% in clinical cases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".