Creating Custom Immersive 360-Degree Videos for Use in Clinical and Nonclinical Settings: Tutorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of virtual reality (VR) stimulation in clinical settings has increased in recent years. In particular, there has been increasing interest in the use of VR stimulation for a variety of purposes, including medical training, pain therapy, and relaxation. Unfortunately, there is still a limited amount of real-world 360-degree content that is both available and suitable for these applications. Therefore, this tutorial paper describes a pipeline for the creation of custom VR content. It covers the planning and designing of content; the selection of appropriate equipment; the creation and processing of footage; and the deployment, visualization, and evaluation of the VR experience. This paper aims to provide a set of guidelines, based on first-hand experience, that readers can use to help create their own 360-degree videos. By discussing and elaborating upon the challenges associated with making 360-degree content, this tutorial can help researchers and health care professionals anticipate and avoid common pitfalls during their own content creation process.
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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".