MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975774002 · doi:10.2196/15025

Immersive Virtual Reality in Health Care: Systematic Review of Technology and Disease States

2019· article· en· W2975774002 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aaron Snoswell, Centaine L. Snoswell

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Biomedical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityHealth careScopusMEDLINEDistractionPhobiasPsychologyMedicineApplied psychologyMultimediaMedical educationComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Immersive virtual reality (IVR) presents new possibilities for application in health care. Health care professionals can now immerse their patients in environments to achieve exposure to a specific scene or experience, evoke targeted emotional responses, inspire, or distract from an experience occurring in reality. Objective This review aimed to identify patient-focused applications for head-mounted IVR for acute treatment of health conditions and determine the technical specifications of the systems used. Methods A systematic review was conducted by searching medical and engineering peer-reviewed literature databases in 2018. The databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Association for Computing Machinery, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search terms relating to health and IVR were used. To be included, studies had to investigate the effectiveness of IVR for acute treatment of a specific health condition. IVR was defined as a head-mounted platform that provides virtual and auditory immersion for the participant and includes a minimum of 3 degrees of orientation tracking. Once identified, data were extracted from articles and aggregated in a narrative review format. Results A total of 58 studies were conducted in 19 countries. The studies reported IVR use for 5 main clinical areas: neurological and development (n=10), pain reduction through distraction (n=20), exposure therapy for phobias (n=9), psychological applications (n=14), and others (n=5). Studies were primarily feasibility studies exploring systems and general user acceptance (n=29) and efficacy studies testing clinical effect (n=28). Conclusions IVR has a promising future in health care, both in research and commercial realms. As many of the studies examined are still exploring the feasibility of IVR for acute treatment of health conditions, evidence for the effectiveness of IVR is still developing.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations103
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Biomedical EngineeringSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207