Augmented reality for the surgeon: Systematic review
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
INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of wearable head-up displays, there has been much interest in the surgical community adapting this technology into routine surgical practice. METHODS: We used the keywords augmented reality OR wearable device OR head-up display AND surgery using PubMed, EBSCO, IEEE and SCOPUS databases. After exclusions, 74 published articles that evaluated the utility of wearable head-up displays in surgical settings were included in our review. RESULTS: Across all studies, the most common use of head-up displays was in cases of live streaming from surgical microscopes, navigation, monitoring of vital signs, and display of preoperative images. The most commonly used head-up display was Google Glass. Head-up displays enhanced surgeons' operating experience; common disadvantages include limited battery life, display size and discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Due to ergonomic issues with dual-screen devices, augmented reality devices with the capacity to overlay images onto the surgical field will be key features of next-generation surgical head-up displays.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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