ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
A novel smartphone augmented reality-based solution for small intracranial lesion localization with refined reference markers.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Neuronavigation is crucial for locating intracranial lesions in neurosurgery. However, it is unaffordable in numerous resource-limited areas. The emerging mobile augmented reality (AR) provides a low-cost alternative to locate lesions, but its accuracy still require improvement before widespread use. This study aimed to explore a novel smartphone AR solution for lesion localization based on a newly developed application and refined reference markers. Methods: The smartphone AR solution and standard navigation were performed to locate intracranial lesions in 38 patients. The time required for AR and navigation, the deviation between lesion center points identified by AR and navigation, and the ratio of overlap region (ROR) between the lesion locations determined by both methods, were measured, respectively, to evaluate the AR performance in preoperative planning. Results: The average time required for AR was shorter than that for navigation (256.61 ± 69.75 s vs. 454.16 ± 78.85 s, Conclusion: The smartphone AR-based solution provides a practical and reliable alternative to locate small intracranial lesions, especially in settings where neuronavigation is unavailable.
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.