An analysis of virtual reality in abdominal surgery—A scoping review
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
BACKGROUND: The integration of virtual reality (VR) in surgery has gained prominence as VR applications have increased in popularity. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken, gathering the most relevant sources, utilising a detailed literature search of medical and academic databases including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, IEEE, Google Scholar, and the Google search engine. RESULTS: Of the 18 articles included, 7 focused on VR in colon surgery, 5 addressed VR in pancreas surgery, and the remaining 6 concentrated on VR in liver surgery. All the articles concluded that VR has a promising future in abdominal surgery by facilitating precision, visualisation, and surgeon training. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting VR technology in abdominal surgery has the potential to improve preoperative planning, decrease perioperative anxiety among patients, and facilitate the training of surgeons, residents, and medical students. Additional supporting studies are necessary before VR can be widely implemented in surgical care delivery.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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