MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414640800 · doi:10.2196/70326

Bactericidal Efficacy of Ultraviolet-C Light on Virtual Reality Devices: In Vitro Assessment of Bacterial Killing

2025· article· en· W4414640800 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott C. Roberts, J. R. WRIGHT, Richard Feinn, Asher Marks, Kimberly Hieftje, Pamela H. Huang, Richard A. Martinello, Thomas S. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadsetVirtual realityIn vitroLens (geology)Bacterial colony

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Virtual reality (VR) headsets are increasingly used in health care settings for a variety of clinical indications, yet processes to ensure safe use between patients are not well-established. Centers vary in how these processes are performed. Most use disinfection wipes that require manual contact with VR devices for a specified dwell time to allow for sufficient pathogen killing, which may introduce manual error and device degradation over time. Ultraviolet-C light (UV-C) devices offer a no-touch, low-cost, and passive method to achieve pathogen killing without the harms of chemical contact-based disinfectants. The use of UV-C for disinfection has been studied for some medical devices but its efficacy for microbe killing on VR headsets is not well-established. Objective: This study aims to determine the bactericidal efficacy of UV-C on VR headsets through quantifying UV-C irradiance and bacterial killing of 3 commercially available UV-C devices. Methods: Three commercially available, low-cost UV-C devices were tested for UV-C energy output at multiple positions, angles, and times across the devices' zone of disinfection. The top and lens of a VR headset, the Meta Oculus Quest 2, were artificially inoculated with high quantities of 3 different strains of bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus epidermidis) and subjected to UV-C light according to each device's manufacturer's instructions for use. The primary outcome was the amount of bacterial killing after exposure to UV-C light. Results: All 3 UV-C devices produced a UV-C dose that ranged from 3.57 to 195.37 mJ/cm2, depending on proximity, angle, irradiance, and time the sensor received. At least 3-log10 killing of all 3 strains of bacteria was achieved for each of the tested UV-C devices; however, there was variability by organism with respect to UV-C device and VR headset location within the device, notably with the proximity of the bacteria to the bulb. S aureus and P aeruginosa were more readily killed than S epidermidis, with increased bacterial killing occurring with increased UV-C exposure doses. There was no experiment in which all bacteria were killed. Conclusions: UV-C dosage increased with exposure irradiance, time, proximity, and angle to the bulb for all 3 UV-C devices. Bacterial killing on the top and lens of a VR headset occurred in all 3 UV-C devices when run according to their manufacturer's instructions for use, although full bacterial killing did not occur in any experiment. UV-C may be an effective method for microbial killing on VR equipment with low-level contamination.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207