MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414451521 · doi:10.1136/rapm-2025-106776

Augmented reality-guided craniofacial and airway nerve block training for anesthesiology residents

2025· article· en· W4414451521 on OpenAlexaff
David X. Zheng, C. D. Mercer, Nathan Lau, John F. Ryan, Amir Moradi, Steven Howe, Preetham Suresh, Geoffroy Noël

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnesthesiologyNerve blockDICOMCraniofacialModality (human–computer interaction)Block (permutation group theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acquisition of craniofacial and airway nerve block (ANB) skills is hindered by the complex anatomy involved, reliance on landmark-guided techniques, and the absence of simulation-based training tools. Augmented reality offers a promising platform for procedural training by providing real-time visual feedback, yet its potential to improve accuracy in ANBs has not been evaluated. This exploratory study assessed the feasibility of AR guidance for improving nerve block performance among anesthesiology faculty and residents.20 participants performed infraorbital, inferior alveolar, superior laryngeal, and glossopharyngeal nerve blocks with and without AR guidance using volumetric Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) reconstructions superimposed on body donor heads via Hololens headset, from Microsoft Corporation and SurgicalAR software from Medivis. AR guidance included a localizer instrument for real-time tracking of a physical needle along a premapped virtual needle path. Performance was assessed by dissection-based accuracy (proximity of methylene blue to the nerve) and procedure time.Overall clinical acceptability was similar between AR and non-AR conditions (65.0% vs 55.0%, McNemar's p=0.754). There were no differences in performance when stratified by level of training (McNemar p=0.219 for residents; McNemar p=0.625 for faculty). However, AR significantly increased procedure time (overall 49.9±8.4 vs 14.5±2.6 s, Wilcoxon p<0.001) and time increases were consistent across training levels (faculty: +34.9 s, p=0.016; residents: +36.0 s, p=0.062). Additionally, there was no difference in nerve block success or procedure length between an overlay mode with the DICOM superimposed onto the body donor and a detached mode with the DICOM floating above or next to the body donor.In this small, exploratory study, AR did not significantly impact the rates of clinically acceptable nerve blocks when performed by faculty or resident anesthesiologists; however, AR significantly increased the amount of time required to perform the procedures. This proof-of-concept study successfully demonstrated the feasibility of using AR to learn and/or perform various craniofacial and ANBs using commercially available technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.350
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207