New approaches to catheter navigation for interventional radiology simulation

[charles]

Is there anyone know about this paper? Or could contact with the author?

[Hugo]

Hi @charles

Yes I do.
How can I help? Would you be interested in getting access to the related simulation code?

If so, you can contact me directly by clicking on “Get This Plugin” on the associated Marketplace item.

Best wishes,

Hugo

[charles]

Hi Hugo，

There seems to be some mistakes in the formulars both in the 2005 and 2006 version. 2005 version for example:
1.”[Hi”] should interchange place with”[Hi]T” int the formula (8) .
2.In “Algorithm 2”, to compute the “u_node”,a negative sign should be added to the right.
3.The second equation in formula (7) lost the subscript “ii”;

My question is am i right about the 3 errors?

[Hugo]

Hi @charles

You are talking about a 2006 paper! I was even not done with my studies!

I don’t see the appropriate equations that you mention. Can you indicate me using the linked paper above?

A more recent paper is available here: Interactive simulation of embolization coils: Modeling and experimental validation

Again, this corresponds to the “Catheter and coil simulation” item described online.

Best

Hugo

[charles]

Hi Hugo,

Here is the link of 2005 :https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11566489_66.
You can download from the page.

[charles]

null

[charles]

It’s also strange that there is a negative sign in the second fomula of formula(7) . It seems should not be.

[Hugo]

Sorry @charles but everything looks fine here.

[charles]

you mean the implemention is fine which strictly follow the algorithm of the paper?
what kind of fine?

[charles]

link below is the cpomputional process, i still can not see in which way could get the formula (8)?

https://pan.baidu.com/s/1UDlkQ5w26jN6NpzkdqWlsg

[charles]

problem has been solved just recenty, now i will close the topic.

[charles]

er…how to change a topic state to “sloved”????

[Hugo]

Hi Charles,

Yes I can close it.
Could you share your conclusions? what was the prob?

Best wishes,

Hugo

[charles]

Bellow is respect to the algorithm 1 in 2006 version:

I am pretty sure there are some errors in 2 ways:

1.Through experiments: It’s easy to implement algorithm 1 strictly follow the process. But I will always get “NaN” in the inverse matrix of “Knn”. Try that with little time and one probably get the same result.

2.Theoretically: I feel difficult to understand the paper in the way it provides, so i can not determine where the logic is wrong exactly. But instead, I rewrite the problem all by pure math, and get a diffierent version of the inverse matrix of “knn”. And it turns out works very well.

I think the best way to be sure about this(if you want) is doing the experiment of Algorithm 1. Maybe just some typing errors, but it indeed affects the result a lot.

[Author]

Posts