Augmented reality mastectomy surgical planning prototype using the HoloLens template for healthcare technology letters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In breast reconstruction following a single mastectomy, the surgeon needs to choose between tens of available implants to find the one that can reproduce the symmetry of the patient's breasts. However, due to the lack of measurement tools this decision is made purely visually, which means the surgeon has to order multiple implants to confirm the size for every single patient. In this Letter, the authors present an augmented reality application, which enables surgeons to see the shape of the implants, as 3D holograms on the patient's body. They custom developed a two-chamber implant that can gain different shapes and be used to test the system. Furthermore, the system was tested in a user study with 13 subjects. The study showed that subjects were able to do a comparison between real and holographic implants and come to a decision about which should be used. This method can be quicker than the traditional way and eliminates sizer implants from the process. Further advantages of the method include the use of a more accurate, user-friendly device, which is easily extendable as new implants that are on the market can be easily added to the system dataset.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".