MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311093341 · doi:10.1080/21681163.2022.2152374

Development and evaluation of an open-source virtual reality C-Arm simulator

2022· article· en· W4311093341 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel R. Allen, Collin Clarke, T.M. Peters, Elvis C. S. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering Imaging & Visualization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsVirtual realityApprenticeshipSimulationComputer scienceLikert scaleOpen sourceLearning curveMedical physicsMedicineSoftwareArtificial intelligencePsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C-Arm positioning for interventional spine procedures is often associated with a steep learning curve. This task requires mentally reconstructing 3D surgical tools and patient anatomy from a 2D X-ray image, which is non-trivial and acquired through years of experience. Standard training via apprenticeship-based programs must be limited due to the unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation. To this end, we propose a Virtual Reality C-Arm simulator for interventional spine procedure training. We implemented the simulator as an open-source module in Slicer, and evaluated its efficacy through a user study, recruiting medical residents and expert clinicians. Users showed an overall significant improvement in C-Arm placement with regards to angular accuracy (mean ~2 degree improvement), and total procedure time (mean 11 minutes less time). The face and content validity was evaluated positively through a Likert scale questionnaire, with a mean score of 4 (out of 5) or higher for each of the questions. The results show the simulator provides effective training for C-Arm positioning, while eliminating the exposure to ionizing radiation associated with the current training standard. Although this work is catered towards spinal procedures, the system is extendable to other fields, such as cardiac and orthopaedic, and will be explored in future works.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering Imaging & VisualizationSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207