Technological Advancements and Elucidation Gadgets for Healthcare Applications: An Exhaustive Methodological Review-Part-II (Robotics, Drones, 3D-Printing, Internet of Things, Virtual/Augmented and Mixed Reality)
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
The substantial applicability of technological advancements to the healthcare sector and its allied segments are on the verge of questioning the abilities of hospitals, medical institutions, doctors and clinical pathologists in delivering world class healthcare facilities to the global patient community. Investigative works pertinent to the role played of technological advancements in the healthcare sector motivated this work to be undertaken. Part-I of the review addressed the applicable role play of advanced technologies such as Artificial intelligence, Big-data, Block chain, Open-Source and Cloud Computing Technologies, etc., to the healthcare sector and its allied segments. The current Part-II manuscript is critically focused upon reviewing the sustainable role of additional disrupting technologies such as Robotics, Drones, 3D-Printing, IoT, Virtual/Augmented/Mixed Reality, etc., to uncover the vast number of implicit problems encountered by the clinical community. Investigations governing the deployment of these technologies in various allied healthcare segments are highlighted in this manuscript. Subsequently, the unspoken challenges and remedial future directions are discussed thereof.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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