Augmenting Performance: A Systematic Review of Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays in Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review of recent literature to understand the current challenges in the use of optical see-through head-mounted displays (OST-HMDs) for augmented reality (AR) assisted surgery. Using Google Scholar, 57 relevant articles from 1 January 2021 through 18 March 2022 were identified. Selected articles were then categorized based on a taxonomy that described the required components of an effective AR-based navigation system: data, processing, overlay, view, and validation. Our findings indicated a focus on orthopedic (n=20) and maxillofacial surgeries (n=8). For preoperative input data, computed tomography (CT) (n=34), and surface rendered models (n=39) were most commonly used to represent image information. Virtual content was commonly directly superimposed with the target site (n=47); this was achieved by surface tracking of fiducials (n=30), external tracking (n=16), or manual placement (n=11). Microsoft HoloLens devices (n=24 in 2021, n=7 in 2022) were the most frequently used OST-HMDs; gestures and/or voice (n=32) served as the preferred interaction paradigm. Though promising system accuracy in the order of 2-5 mm has been demonstrated in phantom models, several human factors and technical challenges-perception, ease of use, context, interaction, and occlusion-remain to be addressed prior to widespread adoption of OST-HMD led surgical navigation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it