ArticleScientific reports2024
Navigation benchmarking for autonomous mobile robots in hospital environment.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming hemodialysis care: a tripartite collaboration model among medical staff, AI agents, and robots.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2026Review
- Application management and effectiveness analysis of intelligent logistics robots in hospital drug and specimen delivery scenarios.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Robotic Perception, Decision-Making, and Clinical Impact.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Goal-oriented autonomous decision-making for social robots via collaborative interactive inverse reinforcement learning approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Feasibility of autonomous medication delivery robots considering elevator utilization in high-traffic hospital environments.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The widespread adoption of robotic technologies in healthcare has opened up new perspectives for enhancing accuracy, effectiveness and quality of medical procedures and patients' care. Special attention has been given to the reliability of robots when operating in environments shared with humans and to the users' safety, especially in case of mobile platforms able to navigate autonomously. From the analysis of the literature, it emerges that navigation tests carried out in a hospital environment are preliminary and not standardized. This paper aims to overcome the limitations in the assessment of autonomous mobile robots navigating in hospital environments by proposing: (i) a structured benchmarking protocol composed of a set of standardized tests, taking into account conditions with increasing complexity, (ii) a set of quantitative performance metrics. The proposed approach has been used in a realistic setting to assess the performance of two robotic platforms, namely HOSBOT and TIAGo, with different technical features and developed for different applications in a clinical scenario.
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.