Augmented and virtual reality usage in awake craniotomy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Augmented and virtual reality (AR, VR) are becoming promising tools in neurosurgery. AR and VR can reduce challenges associated with conventional approaches via the simulation and mimicry of specific environments of choice for surgeons. Awake craniotomy (AC) enables the resection of lesions from eloquent brain areas while monitoring higher cortical and subcortical functions. Evidence suggests that both surgeons and patients benefit from the various applications of AR and VR in AC. This paper investigates the application of AR and VR in AC and assesses its prospective utility in neurosurgery. A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Our search results yielded 220 articles. A total of six articles consisting of 118 patients have been included in this review. VR was used in four papers, and the other two used AR. Tumour was the most common pathology in 108 patients, followed by vascular lesions in eight patients. VR was used for intraoperative mapping of language, vision, and social cognition, while AR was incorporated in preoperative training of white matter dissection and intraoperative visualisation and navigation. Overall, patients and surgeons were satisfied with the applications of AR and VR in their cases. AR and VR can be safely incorporated during AC to supplement, augment, or even replace conventional approaches in neurosurgery. Future investigations are required to assess the feasibility of AR and VR in various phases of AC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".