Ergonomic benefit using heads-up display compared to conventional surgical microscope in Japanese ophthalmologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Occupational musculoskeletal disorders are prevalent in ophthalmic surgeons and can impact surgeons' well-being and productivity. Heads-up displays may reduce ergonomic stress compared to conventional microscopes. This cross-sectional, non-interventional study compared ergonomic experience between heads-up display and conventional ocular microscopes. METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the independent ethics committee and nonprofit organization MINS Institutional Review Board. An online questionnaire was distributed to a sample of ophthalmic surgeons in Japan with experience operating with heads-up display. The questionnaire captured surgeon-specific variables, the standardized Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire, and custom questions to compare heads-up display and conventional microscope and understand long-term impacts of musculoskeletal disorders. RESULTS: Analysis was conducted on responses from 67 surgeons with a mean 25 years of practice and 2.7 years using heads-up display. Many surgeons agreed or strongly agreed that heads-up display reduced the severity (40%) and frequency (40%) of pain and discomfort, improved posture (61%), and improved overall comfort (61%). Of respondents who experienced asthenopia (n = 59) or pain/discomfort during operation (n = 61), 54% reported improvement in asthenopia and 72% reported feeling less pain/discomfort since using heads-up display. Overall, 69% reported preference for heads-up display. CONCLUSION: This study provides novel data on musculoskeletal disorders and the long-term impacts of ergonomic strain reported by ophthalmologists building on existing literature demonstrating ergonomic and other advantages of heads-up display. Future studies with objective ergonomic assessment are warranted to validate these findings.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".