ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
A robot-assisted eye positioning method with high precision and repeatability for ocular particle therapy: mechanical and geometric assessment.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Noninvasive ocular particle therapy requires precise eye positioning. While static guidance systems lack gaze flexibility, existing dynamic robot-assisted systems are limited by severe workflow disruptions in shared clinical environments and a lack of kinematic occlusion models to guarantee safety. To overcome these limitations, an eye positioning and monitoring system (EPMS) was developed. A gaze range analysis algorithm and an occlusion zone analytical algorithm for the beam path and cameras were proposed. Furthermore, a mechanical reproducibility assessment quantified the system's performance under busy preoperative disruptions, including powering off/reconnecting and uninstalling/reinstalling. The EPMS mechanical guidance range reached 360° azimuth and 60.1° maximum polar, while identifying specific exclusion zones. Stability tests demonstrated cumulative workflow errors were always ≤ 0.22 mm and 0.01° for the guidance module, and ≤ 0.20 mm and 0.1° for the monitoring module. Corresponding eyeball rotation deviations were 0.25° (SD 0.13°) in polar and 0.09° (SD 0.07°) in azimuth. The EPMS demonstrates robust reproducibility, validating its adaptability to conventional radiotherapy environments without requiring dedicated ophthalmology treatment rooms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42373909What 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.