MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313187564 · doi:10.2196/42709

Mixed Reality Platforms in Telehealth Delivery: Scoping Review

2022· article· en· W4313187564 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Biomedical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsTelehealthAugmented realityTelemedicineVirtual realityComputer scienceMixed realityFidelityMultimediaProtocol (science)VideoconferencingMedicineHealth careHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The distinctive features of the digital reality platforms, namely augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) have extended to medical education, training, simulation, and patient care. Furthermore, this digital reality technology seamlessly merges with information and communication technology creating an enriched telehealth ecosystem. This review provides a composite overview of the prospects of telehealth delivered using the MR platform in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: This review identifies various clinical applications of high-fidelity digital display technology, namely AR, VR, and MR, delivered using telehealth capabilities. Next, the review focuses on the technical characteristics, hardware, and software technologies used in the composition of AR, VR, and MR in telehealth. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the methodological framework and reporting design using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Full-length articles in English were obtained from the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. The search protocol was based on the following keywords and Medical Subject Headings to obtain relevant results: "augmented reality," "virtual reality," "mixed-reality," "telemedicine," "telehealth," and "digital health." A predefined inclusion-exclusion criterion was developed in filtering the obtained results and the final selection of the articles, followed by data extraction and construction of the review. RESULTS: We identified 4407 articles, of which 320 were eligible for full-text screening. A total of 134 full-text articles were included in the review. Telerehabilitation, telementoring, teleconsultation, telemonitoring, telepsychiatry, telesurgery, and telediagnosis were the segments of the telehealth division that explored the use of AR, VR, and MR platforms. Telerehabilitation using VR was the most commonly recurring segment in the included studies. AR and MR has been mainly used for telementoring and teleconsultation. The most important technical features of digital reality technology to emerge with telehealth were virtual environment, exergaming, 3D avatars, telepresence, anchoring annotations, and first-person viewpoint. Different arrangements of technology-3D modeling and viewing tools, communication and streaming platforms, file transfer and sharing platforms, sensors, high-fidelity displays, and controllers-formed the basis of most systems. CONCLUSIONS: This review constitutes a recent overview of the evolving digital AR and VR in various clinical applications using the telehealth setup. This combination of telehealth with AR, VR, and MR allows for remote facilitation of clinical expertise and further development of home-based treatment. This review explores the rapidly growing suite of technologies available to users within the digital health sector and examines the opportunities and challenges they present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.314 · 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