ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Constraint-Driven Automated Framework for Optimizing Multi-Tool Fiducial Configurations in Surgical Navigation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
The accuracy of optical tracking tools is crucial for surgical navigation. While commercial tools are reliable, their proprietary design knowledge limits accessibility and adaptability for specialized clinical and research applications. This study introduces an open, reproducible optimization framework based on point-based rigid registration theory, defining a unified pose estimation deviation metric and deriving its analytical expression for both expectation and variance. The approach incorporates constraints for intra-group uniqueness and inter-group compatibility, using exhaustive configuration generation and geometric evaluation to rank designs by predicted accuracy. Numerical simulations confirmed the derived formula, with under 5% average prediction error for the expectation and strong agreement for the variance. Optimized four-fiducial tools were compared to commercial references via tip calibration, distance measurement, and registration tests. Most optimized tools (75%) achieved accuracy comparable to or modestly better than commercial tools (e.g., tip calibration 0.22 mm vs. 0.28 mm, distance measurement 0.18 mm vs. 0.20 mm, FRE 0.13 mm vs. 0.16 mm, TRE 0.48 mm vs. 0.51 mm). All four experiments showed a strong positive correlation between the theoretical metric and measured error (Pearson's r>0.98, all p<2.2×10-7; exact Spearman p≤2.8×10-6). Beyond these numerical results, the primary contribution is a systematic, open design methodology that formalizes knowledge historically proprietary to commercial vendors, enabling researchers and engineers to generate high-precision custom tracking tools for diverse surgical navigation scenarios.
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.