The Virtual Reality Radiology Workstation: Current Technology and Future Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology hold potential across many disciplines in medicine to expand the delivery of education and healthcare. VR-AR applications in radiology, in particular, have gained prominence and have demonstrated advantages in many areas within the field. Recently, VR software has emerged to redesign the physical radiology workstation (ie, reading room) to expand the possibilities of diagnostic interpretation. Given the novelty of this technology, there is limited research investigating the potential applications of a simulated radiology workstation. In this review article, we explore VR-simulated reading room technology in its current form and illustrate the practical applications this technology will bring to future radiologists and learners. We also discuss the limitations and barriers to adopting this technology that must be overcome to truly understand its potential benefits. VR reading room technology offers great potential in radiology, but further research is needed to appreciate its benefits and identify areas for improvement. The findings and insights presented in this review contribute to the ongoing discourse on future technological advancements in radiology and healthcare, offering valuable recommendations for further research and practical implementation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".