MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184353260 · doi:10.2196/17472

Augmented Reality for Guideline Presentation in Medicine: Randomized Crossover Simulation Trial for Technically Assisted Decision-making

2021· article· en· W3184353260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andreas Follmann, Alexander Ruhl, Michael Gösch, Marc Felzen, Rolf Rossaint, Michael Czaplik

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsTriageGuidelineCrossover studyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Medical physicsMedical emergencyComputer scienceSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines provide instructions for diagnostics and therapy in modern medicine. Various mobile devices are used to represent the potential complex decision trees. An example of time-critical decisions is triage in case of a mass casualty incident. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized controlled crossover study, the potential of augmented reality for guideline presentation was evaluated and compared with the guideline presentation provided in a tablet PC as a conventional device. METHODS: A specific Android app was designed for use with smart glasses and a tablet PC for the presentation of a triage algorithm as an example for a complex guideline. Forty volunteers simulated a triage based on 30 fictional patient descriptions, each with technical support from smart glasses and a tablet PC in a crossover trial design. The time to come to a decision and the accuracy were recorded and compared between both devices. RESULTS: A total of 2400 assessments were performed by the 40 volunteers. A significantly faster time to triage was achieved in total with the tablet PC (median 12.8 seconds, IQR 9.4-17.7; 95% CI 14.1-14.9) compared to that to triage with smart glasses (median 17.5 seconds, IQR 13.2-22.8, 95% CI 18.4-19.2; P=.001). Considering the difference in the triage time between both devices, the additional time needed with the smart glasses could be reduced significantly in the course of assessments (21.5 seconds, IQR 16.5-27.3, 95% CI 21.6-23.2) in the first run, 17.4 seconds (IQR 13-22.4, 95% CI 17.6-18.9) in the second run, and 14.9 seconds (IQR 11.7-18.6, 95% CI 15.2-16.3) in the third run (P=.001). With regard to the accuracy of the guideline decisions, there was no significant difference between both the devices. CONCLUSIONS: The presentation of a guideline on a tablet PC as well as through augmented reality achieved good results. The implementation with smart glasses took more time owing to their more complex operating concept but could be accelerated in the course of the study after adaptation. Especially in a non-time-critical working area where hands-free interfaces are useful, a guideline presentation with augmented reality can be of great use during clinical management.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207