MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803853169 · doi:10.2196/10295

Three-Dimensional Portable Document Format (3D PDF) in Clinical Communication and Biomedical Sciences: Systematic Review of Applications, Tools, and Protocols

2018· review· en· W2803853169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Axel Newe, Linda Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScope (computer science)Data scienceThe InternetSystematic reviewVisualizationScientific literatureWorld Wide WebMEDLINEInformation retrievalData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Portable Document Format (PDF) is the standard file format for the communication of biomedical information via the internet and for electronic scholarly publishing. Although PDF allows for the embedding of three-dimensional (3D) objects and although this technology has great potential for the communication of such data, it is not broadly used by the scientific community or by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to provide an overview of existing publications that apply 3D PDF technology and the protocols and tools for the creation of model files and 3D PDFs for scholarly purposes to demonstrate the possibilities and the ways to use this technology. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles searched for were in English, peer-reviewed with biomedical reference, published since 2005 in a journal or presented at a conference or scientific meeting. Ineligible articles were removed after screening. The found literature was categorized into articles that (1) applied 3D PDF for visualization, (2) showed ways to use 3D PDF, and (3) provided tools or protocols for the creation of 3D PDFs or necessary models. Finally, the latter category was analyzed in detail to provide an overview of the state of the art. RESULTS: The search retrieved a total of 902 items. Screening identified 200 in-scope publications, 13 covering the use of 3D PDF for medical purposes. Only one article described a clinical routine use case; all others were pure research articles. The disciplines that were covered beside medicine were many. In most cases, either animal or human anatomies were visualized. A method, protocol, software, library, or other tool for the creation of 3D PDFs or model files was described in 19 articles. Most of these tools required advanced programming skills and/or the installation of further software packages. Only one software application presented an all-in-one solution with a graphical user interface. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3D PDF for visualization purposes in clinical communication and in biomedical publications is still not in common use, although both the necessary technique and suitable tools are available, and there are many arguments in favor of this technique. The potential of 3D PDF usage should be disseminated in the clinical and biomedical community. Furthermore, easy-to-use, standalone, and free-of-charge software tools for the creation of 3D PDFs should be developed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207