Extended Reality-Based Head-Mounted Displays for Surgical Education: A Ten-Year Systematic 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
Surgical education demands extensive knowledge and skill acquisition within limited time frames, often limited by reduced training opportunities and high-pressure environments. This review evaluates the effectiveness of extended reality-based head-mounted display (ExR-HMD) technology in surgical education, examining its impact on educational outcomes and exploring its strengths and limitations. Data from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, WorldCat, and Google Scholar (Year: 2014-2024) were synthesized. After screening, 32 studies comparing ExR-HMD and traditional surgical training methods for medical students or residents were identified. Quality and bias were assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education, and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools. Results indicate that ExR-HMD offers benefits such as increased immersion, spatial awareness, and interaction and supports motor skill acquisition theory and constructivist educational theories. However, challenges such as system fidelity, operational inconvenience, and physical discomfort were noted. Nearly half the studies reported outcomes comparable or superior to traditional methods, emphasizing the importance of social interaction. Limitations include study heterogeneity and English-only publications. ExR-HMD shows promise but needs educational theory integration and social interaction. Future research should address technical and economic barriers to global accessibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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