MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087057894 · doi:10.1227/neu.0b013e31827393c9

Virtual Endoscopy in Neurosurgery

2012· review· en· W2087057894 on OpenAlexaff
André Neubauer, Stefan Wolfsberger

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopyVirtual realityNeurosurgeryHaptic technologyNeuronavigationMedical physicsEndoscopic surgerySurgeryComputer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtual endoscopy is the computerized creation of images depicting the inside of patient anatomy reconstructed in a virtual reality environment. It permits interactive, noninvasive, 3-dimensional visual inspection of anatomical cavities or vessels. This can aid in diagnostics, potentially replacing an actual endoscopic procedure, and help in the preparation of a surgical intervention by bridging the gap between plain 2-dimensional radiologic images and the 3-dimensional depiction of anatomy during actual endoscopy. If not only the endoscopic vision but also endoscopic handling, including realistic haptic feedback, is simulated, virtual endoscopy can be an effective training tool for novice surgeons. In neurosurgery, the main fields of the application of virtual endoscopy are third ventriculostomy, endonasal surgery, and the evaluation of pathologies in cerebral blood vessels. Progress in this very active field of research is achieved through cooperation between the technical and the medical communities. While the technology advances and new methods for modeling, reconstruction, and simulation are being developed, clinicians evaluate existing simulators, steer the development of new ones, and explore new fields of application. This review introduces some of the most interesting virtual reality systems for endoscopic neurosurgery developed in recent years and presents clinical studies conducted either on areas of application or specific systems. In addition, benefits and limitations of single products and simulated neuroendoscopy in general are pointed out.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207