MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308771510 · doi:10.3390/jimaging8110305

Towards a Low-Cost Monitor-Based Augmented Reality Training Platform for At-Home Ultrasound Skill Development

2022· article· en· W4308771510 on OpenAlexaff
Marine Shao, Tamara Vagg, Matthias Seibold, Mitchell Doughty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of the West of EnglandEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceAugmented realityNoveltyVirtual realityUltrasoundProof of conceptInterface (matter)Training (meteorology)Tracking (education)Match movingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionMultimediaMotion (physics)MedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound education traditionally involves theoretical and practical training on patients or on simulators; however, difficulty accessing training equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for home-based training systems. Due to the prohibitive cost of ultrasound probes, few medical students have access to the equipment required for at home training. Our proof of concept study focused on the development and assessment of the technical feasibility and training performance of an at-home training solution to teach the basics of interpreting and generating ultrasound data. The training solution relies on monitor-based augmented reality for displaying virtual content and requires only a marker printed on paper and a computer with webcam. With input webcam video, we performed body pose estimation to track the student's limbs and used surface tracking of printed fiducials to track the position of a simulated ultrasound probe. The novelty of our work is in its combination of printed markers with marker-free body pose tracking. In a small user study, four ultrasound lecturers evaluated the training quality with a questionnaire and indicated the potential of our system. The strength of our method is that it allows students to learn the manipulation of an ultrasound probe through the simulated probe combined with the tracking system and to learn how to read ultrasounds in B-mode and Doppler mode.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.335
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ImagingSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207