JMIR human factors · 2026
Utility of Augmented Reality Glasses With Waveguide Optics and Facial Recognition Technology for Patient Verification in a Simulated Outpatient Setting: Physician Questionnaire Survey Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ogasawara Ryo Andy, Yoshida Soichiro, Okamoto Kentaro, Nagaoka Eiki, Sagawa Hirotaka, Sumita Kazutaka, Tanaka Hajime, Shiraga Satoshi, Amemiya Tomohiro, Fujii Yasuhisa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Augmented reality (AR) glasses with waveguide optics and facial recognition may enhance patient identification and clinical workflows. However, their usability among physicians has not yet been evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of prototype AR glasses with facial recognition in a simulated outpatient setting.
METHODS: In May 2025, 14 urologists from a single institution tested prototype AR glasses developed by Cellid Inc. The device incorporates waveguide-based optical displays, a miniature camera, and deep learning-based facial recognition software. Physicians identified preregistered mock patients, with demographic and clinical data displayed on the right lens. After the trial, participants completed an anonymous questionnaire on usability, comfort, visibility, and self-reported symptoms using 3- or 5-point Likert scales.
RESULTS: Eleven participants (79%; 95% CI 52%-92%) found the device helpful in performing clinical procedures, and 12 (86%; 95% CI 60%-96%) believed it improved patient safety. Most participants adapted quickly to wearing the device, and 79% (95% CI 52%-92%) expressed a willingness to use it in future practice. Four of 13 respondents (31%; 95% CI 13%-58%) selected "somewhat tired" for eye fatigue, and only 1 participant experienced minor and transient physical symptoms including headache and nausea. Three of 13 respondents (23%; 95% CI 8%-50%) rated the glasses as slightly heavy, and among the 5 participants who wore prescription glasses, 4 (80%; 95% CI 38%-96%) reported difficulty wearing the prototype over their glasses. Surrounding-environment visibility and perceived facial recognition responsiveness were generally favorable; however, 8 of 13 respondents (62%; 95% CI 36%-82%) rated the displayed patient information as slightly difficult to see.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, AR glasses with facial recognition were well accepted by physicians. This technology has demonstrated perceived clinical utility and has the potential to assist medical professionals, though further refinement and larger clinical evaluations are needed.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of prototype AR glasses with facial recognition in a simulated outpatient setting.
METHODS: In May 2025, 14 urologists from a single institution tested prototype AR glasses developed by Cellid Inc. The device incorporates waveguide-based optical displays, a miniature camera, and deep learning-based facial recognition software. Physicians identified preregistered mock patients, with demographic and clinical data displayed on the right lens. After the trial, participants completed an anonymous questionnaire on usability, comfort, visibility, and self-reported symptoms using 3- or 5-point Likert scales.
RESULTS: Eleven participants (79%; 95% CI 52%-92%) found the device helpful in performing clinical procedures, and 12 (86%; 95% CI 60%-96%) believed it improved patient safety. Most participants adapted quickly to wearing the device, and 79% (95% CI 52%-92%) expressed a willingness to use it in future practice. Four of 13 respondents (31%; 95% CI 13%-58%) selected "somewhat tired" for eye fatigue, and only 1 participant experienced minor and transient physical symptoms including headache and nausea. Three of 13 respondents (23%; 95% CI 8%-50%) rated the glasses as slightly heavy, and among the 5 participants who wore prescription glasses, 4 (80%; 95% CI 38%-96%) reported difficulty wearing the prototype over their glasses. Surrounding-environment visibility and perceived facial recognition responsiveness were generally favorable; however, 8 of 13 respondents (62%; 95% CI 36%-82%) rated the displayed patient information as slightly difficult to see.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, AR glasses with facial recognition were well accepted by physicians. This technology has demonstrated perceived clinical utility and has the potential to assist medical professionals, though further refinement and larger clinical evaluations are needed.