DVV: A Taxonomy for Mixed Reality Visualization in Image Guided Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed reality visualizations are increasingly studied for use in image guided surgery (IGS) systems, yet few mixed reality systems have been introduced for daily use into the operating room (OR). This may be the result of several factors: the systems are developed from a technical perspective, are rarely evaluated in the field, and/or lack consideration of the end user and the constraints of the OR. We introduce the Data, Visualization processing, View (DVV) taxonomy which defines each of the major components required to implement a mixed reality IGS system. We propose that these components be considered and used as validation criteria for introducing a mixed reality IGS system into the OR. A taxonomy of IGS visualization systems is a step toward developing a common language that will help developers and end users discuss and understand the constituents of a mixed reality visualization system, facilitating a greater presence of future systems in the OR. We evaluate the DVV taxonomy based on its goodness of fit and completeness. We demonstrate the utility of the DVV taxonomy by classifying 17 state-of-the-art research papers in the domain of mixed reality visualization IGS systems. Our classification shows that few IGS visualization systems' components have been validated and even fewer are evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".