ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Neuroanatomical photogrammetric models using smartphones: a comparison of apps.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immersive Neurosurgical Anatomy Using Photogrammetry: Technical Note and Scoping Review.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2026Article
- Immortalising cadaveric brain dissection using application photogrammetry.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Fusion of 3D photorealistic lateral-to-medial brain white matter dissection and diffusion tensor imaging for dynamic visualization of key fiber tracts.Brain & spine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA deep knowledge of the surgical anatomy of the target area is mandatory for a successful operative procedure. For this purpose, over the years, many teaching and learning methods have been described, from the most ancient cadaveric dissection to the most recent virtual reality, each with their respective pros and cons. Photogrammetry, an emergent technique, allows for the creation of three-dimensional (3D) models and reconstructions. Thanks to the spreading of photogrammetry nowadays it is possible to generate these models using professional software or even smartphone apps. This study aims to compare the neuroanatomical photogrammetric models generated by the two most utilized smartphone applications in this domain, Metascan and 3D-Scanner, through quantitative analysis.
methodsTwo human head specimens (four sides) were examined. Anatomical dissection was segmented into five stages to systematically expose well-defined structures. After each stage, a photogrammetric model was generated using two prominent smartphone applications. These models were then subjected to both quantitative and qualitative analysis, with a specific focus on comparing the mesh density as a measure of model resolution and accuracy. Appropriate consent was obtained for the publication of the cadaver's image.
resultsThe quantitative analysis revealed that the models generated by Metascan app consistently demonstrated superior mesh density compared to those from 3D-Scanner, indicating a higher level of detail and potential for precise anatomical representation.
conclusionEnabling depth perception, capturing high-quality images, offering flexibility in viewpoints: photogrammetry provides researchers with unprecedented opportunities to explore and understand the intricate and magnificent structure of the brain. However, it is of paramount importance to develop and apply rigorous quality control systems to ensure data integrity and reliability of findings in neurological research. This study has demonstrated the superiority of Metascan in processing photogrammetric models for neuroanatomical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.