ArticleScientific reports2024
Safely and autonomously cutting meat with a collaborative robot arm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Worker and Food Safety in Poultry Processing Through Human-Robot Collaboration: A Comprehensive Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cutting soft materials: how material differences shape the response.npj computational materials · 2026Article
- Innovative Technologies Reshaping Meat Industrialization: Challenges and Opportunities in the Intelligent Era.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Labor shortages in the United States are impacting a number of industries including the meat processing sector. Collaborative technologies that work alongside humans while increasing production abilities may support the industry by enhancing automation and improving job quality. However, existing automation technologies used in the meat industry have limited collaboration potential, low flexibility, and high cost. The objective of this work was to explore the use of a robot arm to collaboratively work alongside a human and complete tasks performed in a meat processing facility. Toward this objective, we demonstrated proof-of-concept approaches to ensure human safety while exploring the capacity of the robot arm to perform example meat processing tasks. In support of human safety, we developed a knife instrumentation system to detect when the cutting implement comes into contact with meat within the collaborative space. To demonstrate the capability of the system to flexibly conduct a variety of basic meat processing tasks, we developed vision and control protocols to execute slicing, trimming, and cubing of pork loins. We also collected a subjective evaluation of the actions from experts within the U.S. meat processing industry. On average the experts rated the robot's performance as adequate. Moreover, the experts generally preferred the cuts performed in collaboration with a human worker to cuts completed autonomously, highlighting the benefits of robotic technologies that assist human workers rather than replace them. Video demonstrations of our proposed framework can be found here: https://youtu.be/56mdHjjYMVc .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.