Real-time integration between Microsoft HoloLens 2 and 3D Slicer with demonstration in pedicle screw placement planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Up to date, there has been a lack of software infrastructure to connect 3D Slicer to any augmented reality (AR) device. This work describes a novel connection approach using Microsoft HoloLens 2 and OpenIGTLink, with a demonstration in pedicle screw placement planning. METHODS: We developed an AR application in Unity that is wirelessly rendered onto Microsoft HoloLens 2 using Holographic Remoting. Simultaneously, Unity connects to 3D Slicer using the OpenIGTLink communication protocol. Geometrical transform and image messages are transferred between both platforms in real time. Through the AR glasses, a user visualizes a patient's computed tomography overlaid onto virtual 3D models showing anatomical structures. We technically evaluated the system by measuring message transference latency between the platforms. Its functionality was assessed in pedicle screw placement planning. Six volunteers planned pedicle screws' position and orientation with the AR system and on a 2D desktop planner. We compared the placement accuracy of each screw with both methods. Finally, we administered a questionnaire to all participants to assess their experience with the AR system. RESULTS: The latency in message exchange is sufficiently low to enable real-time communication between the platforms. The AR method was non-inferior to the 2D desktop planner, with a mean error of 2.1 ± 1.4 mm. Moreover, 98% of the screw placements performed with the AR system were successful, according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. The average questionnaire outcomes were 4.5/5. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time communication between Microsoft HoloLens 2 and 3D Slicer is feasible and supports accurate planning for pedicle screw placement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".