Home › Forum › Announcements / Infos › New approaches to catheter navigation for interventional radiology simulation
Tagged: catheter
 This topic has 13 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by charles.

AuthorPosts

16 October 2019 at 10:25 #14406charlesBlocked
Is there anyone know about this paper? Or could contact with the author?
18 October 2019 at 18:59 #14416HugoKeymasterHi @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
19 October 2019 at 03:02 #14417charlesBlockedHi 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?
22 October 2019 at 17:38 #14442HugoKeymasterHi @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
23 October 2019 at 03:57 #14444charlesBlockedHi Hugo,
Here is the link of 2005 :https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11566489_66.
You can download from the page.23 October 2019 at 05:58 #14445charlesBlockednull
23 October 2019 at 10:39 #14446charlesBlockedIt’s also strange that there is a negative sign in the second fomula of formula(7) . It seems should not be.
23 October 2019 at 15:01 #1444823 October 2019 at 15:03 #14449charlesBlockedyou mean the implemention is fine which strictly follow the algorithm of the paper?
what kind of fine?23 October 2019 at 15:35 #14450charlesBlockedlink below is the cpomputional process, i still can not see in which way could get the formula (8)?
2 November 2019 at 03:00 #14511charlesBlockedproblem has been solved just recenty, now i will close the topic.
2 November 2019 at 03:06 #14512charlesBlockeder…how to change a topic state to “sloved”????
3 November 2019 at 16:45 #14518HugoKeymasterHi Charles,
Yes I can close it.
Could you share your conclusions? what was the prob?Best wishes,
Hugo
4 November 2019 at 07:11 #14526charlesBlockedBellow 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.

AuthorPosts
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.