MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401325593 · doi:10.1007/s13304-024-01960-x

The revolution of metaverse in surgery: a mini-review with video

2024· review· en· W4401325593 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

VenueUpdates in Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryMetaverseComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceVirtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The virtual reality (VR) is an application in which people can interact each other with their own avatars. Metaverse has already been tested in numerous medical fields and health care as telemedicine, second opinion and remote discussion, but in surgery some fundamental concepts are not yet very widespread. In this study, we want to show our surgery and workshop experiences in the Metaverse to demonstrate the safety and efficiency of this new technology in surgery, in particular for telementoring and remote surgery, combining artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR) and VR.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.283 · 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