ArticleIEEE sensors journal2025
Marker-to-Object Calibration Using Landmark Touch.
Article in IEEE sensors journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In image-guided interventions, fiducial markers are widely used for medical instrument tracking by attaching them to designated positions. However, due to the difficulty of precise marker placement, obtaining an accurate marker-to-object transformation remains technically challenging, particularly with customized markers or those with non-standard geometries. To accurately identify the transformation, this study introduces a novel calibration method achieved by sequentially touching a fixed tip with landmarks on the object. An inverse sample consensus filter was proposed to remove potential measurement outliers and improve the robustness of the calibration result. Validation through simulations and experiments under two tracking modalities demonstrated superior translational accuracy and improved robustness compared to conventional methods. Specifically, the experiment conducted under electromagnetic tracking system demonstrated a translational error of 0.61 ± 0.11 mm and a rotational error of 0.97 ± 0.18°. The experiment using magnetic resonance imaging system demonstrated a translational error of 0.60 mm and a rotational error of 2.81°. A use case with an intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation robot further verified the feasibility of integrating the calibration method into the image-guided workflow. The proposed method achieved sub-millimeter calibration accuracy across different scenarios, demonstrating its effectiveness and strong potential for diverse research and clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.