Preliminary Study on the Clinical Application of Augmented Reality Neuronavigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop an augmented reality (AR) neuronavigation system with Web cameras and examine its clinical utility. METHODS: The utility of the system was evaluated in three patients with brain tumors. One patient had a glioblastoma and two patients had convexity meningiomas. Our navigation system comprised the open-source software 3D Slicer (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA), the infrared optical tracking sensor Polaris (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Canada), and Web cameras. We prepared two different types of Web cameras: a handheld type and a headband type. Optical markers were attached to each Web camera. We used this system for skin incision planning before the operation, during craniotomy, and after dural incision. RESULTS: We were able to overlay these images in all cases. In Case 1, accuracy could not be evaluated because the tumor was not on the surface, though it was generally suitable for the outline of the external ear and the skin. In Cases 2 and 3, the augmented reality error was ∼2 to 3 mm. CONCLUSION: AR technology was examined with Web cameras in neurosurgical operations. Our results suggest that this technology is clinically useful in neurosurgical procedures, particularly for brain tumors close to the brain surface.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it