Extended reality in cranial and spinal neurosurgery – a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited articles on extended reality (XR) in neurosurgery aimed to reveal trends in this research field. Gender differences in authorship and global distribution of the most-cited articles were also addressed. METHODS: A Web of Science electronic database search was conducted. The top 100 most-cited articles related to the scope of this review were retrieved and analyzed for trends in publications, journal characteristics, authorship, global distribution, study design, and focus areas. After a brief description of the top 100 publications, a comparative analysis between spinal and cranial publications was performed. RESULTS: From 2005, there was a significant increase in spinal neurosurgery publications with a focus on pedicle screw placement. Most articles were original research studies, with an emphasis on augmented reality (AR). In cranial neurosurgery, there was no notable increase in publications. There was an increase in studies assessing both AR and virtual reality (VR) research, with a notable emphasis on VR compared to AR. Education, surgical skills assessment, and surgical planning were more common themes in cranial studies compared to spinal studies. Female authorship was notably low in both groups, with no significant increase over time. The USA and Canada contributed most of the publications in the research field. CONCLUSIONS: Research regarding the use of XR in neurosurgery increased significantly from 2005. Cranial research focused on VR and resident education while spinal research focused on AR and neuronavigation. Female authorship was underrepresented. North America provides most of the high-impact research in this area.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.172 | 0.196 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".