MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888696167 · doi:10.1049/htl.2018.5061

Augmented reality visualisation for orthopaedic surgical guidance with pre‐ and intra‐operative multimodal image data fusion

2018· article· en· W2888696167 on OpenAlexaff
Houssam El‐Hariri, Prashant Pandey, Antony J. Hodgson, Rafeef Garbi

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Technology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented realityVisualizationComputer scienceFiducial markerComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImaging phantomVirtual reality3D ultrasoundSegmentationImage-guided surgeryMedical imagingComputer graphics (images)UltrasoundRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Augmented reality (AR) has proven to be a useful, exciting technology in several areas of healthcare. AR may especially enhance the operator's experience in minimally invasive surgical applications by providing more intuitive and naturally immersive visualisation in those procedures which heavily rely on three‐dimensional (3D) imaging data. Benefits include improved operator ergonomics, reduced fatigue, and simplified hand–eye coordination. Head‐mounted AR displays may hold great potential for enhancing surgical navigation given their compactness and intuitiveness of use. In this work, the authors propose a method that can intra‐operatively locate bone structures using tracked ultrasound (US), registers to the corresponding pre‐operative computed tomography (CT) data and generates 3D AR visualisation of the operated surgical scene through a head‐mounted display. The proposed method deploys optically‐tracked US, bone surface segmentation from the US and CT image volumes, and multimodal volume registration to align pre‐operative to the corresponding intra‐operative data. The enhanced surgical scene is then visualised in an AR framework using a HoloLens. They demonstrate the method's utility using a foam pelvis phantom and quantitatively assess accuracy by comparing the locations of fiducial markers in the real and virtual spaces, yielding root mean square errors of 3.22, 22.46, and 28.30 mm in the x , y , and z directions, respectively.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Technology LettersSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207