MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013098014 · doi:10.1109/tmrb.2020.2983199

SlicerVR for Medical Intervention Training and Planning in Immersive Virtual Reality

2020· article· en· W3013098014 on OpenAlexafffund
Csaba Pintér, András Lassó, Saleh Choueib, Mark Asselin, Jean‐Christophe Fillion‐Robin, Jean-Baptiste Vimort, Ken Martin, Matthew A. Jolley, Gábor Fichtinger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringSoutheastern Ontario Academic Medical Organization
KeywordsVirtual realityVisualizationComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionVariety (cybernetics)SoftwareLicenseMultimediaArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtual reality (VR) provides immersive visualization that has proved to be useful in a variety of medical applications. Currently, however, no free open-source software platform exists that would provide comprehensive support for translational clinical researchers in prototyping experimental VR scenarios in training, planning or guiding medical interventions. By integrating VR functions in 3D Slicer, an established medical image analysis and visualization platform, SlicerVR enables virtual reality experience by a single click. It provides functions to navigate and manipulate the virtual scene, as well as various settings to abate the feeling of motion sickness. SlicerVR allows for shared collaborative VR experience both locally and remotely. We present illustrative scenarios created with SlicerVR in a wide spectrum of applications, including echocardiography, neurosurgery, spine surgery, brachytherapy, intervention training and personalized patient education. SlicerVR is freely available under BSD type license as an extension to 3D Slicer and it has been downloaded over 7,800 times at the time of writing this article.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and BionicsSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207