MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399018825 · doi:10.1080/24699322.2024.2355897

A decade of progress: bringing mixed reality image-guided surgery systems in the operating room

2024· review· en· W4399018825 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Assisted Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowVisualizationComputer scienceData scienceVirtual realityImage-guided surgeryMixed realityAugmented realityHuman–computer interactionMedical physicsData miningArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in mixed reality (MR) have led to innovative approaches in image-guided surgery (IGS). In this paper, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the current state of MR in image-guided procedures across various surgical domains. Using the Data Visualization View (DVV) Taxonomy, we analyze the progress made since a 2013 literature review paper on MR IGS systems. In addition to examining the current surgical domains using MR systems, we explore trends in types of MR hardware used, type of data visualized, visualizations of virtual elements, and interaction methods in use. Our analysis also covers the metrics used to evaluate these systems in the operating room (OR), both qualitative and quantitative assessments, and clinical studies that have demonstrated the potential of MR technologies to enhance surgical workflows and outcomes. We also address current challenges and future directions that would further establish the use of MR in IGS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it