Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Feb 12;16(2):e53.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.3225.

Google Glass for documentation of medical findings: evaluation in forensic medicine

Urs-Vito Albrecht  1 , Ute von Jan, Joachim Kuebler, Christoph Zoeller, Martin Lacher, Oliver J Muensterer, Max Ettinger, Michael Klintschar, Lars Hagemeier
Affiliations

Google Glass for documentation of medical findings: evaluation in forensic medicine

Urs-Vito Albrecht et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Google Glass is a promising premarket device that includes an optical head-mounted display. Several proof of concept reports exist, but there is little scientific evidence regarding its use in a medical setting.

Objective: The objective of this study was to empirically determine the feasibility of deploying Glass in a forensics setting.

Methods: Glass was used in combination with a self-developed app that allowed for hands-free operation during autopsy and postmortem examinations of 4 decedents performed by 2 physicians. A digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera was used for image comparison. In addition, 6 forensic examiners (3 male, 3 female; age range 23-48 years, age mean 32.8 years, SD 9.6; mean work experience 6.2 years, SD 8.5) were asked to evaluate 159 images for image quality on a 5-point Likert scale, specifically color discrimination, brightness, sharpness, and their satisfaction with the acquired region of interest. Statistical evaluations were performed to determine how Glass compares with conventionally acquired digital images.

Results: All images received good (median 4) and very good ratings (median 5) for all 4 categories. Autopsy images taken by Glass (n=32) received significantly lower ratings than those acquired by DSLR camera (n=17) (region of interest: z=-5.154, P<.001; sharpness: z=-7.898, P<.001; color: z=-4.407, P<.001, brightness: z=-3.187, P=.001). For 110 images of postmortem examinations (Glass: n=54, DSLR camera: n=56), ratings for region of interest (z=-8.390, P<.001) and brightness (z=-540, P=.007) were significantly lower. For interrater reliability, intraclass correlation (ICC) values were good for autopsy (ICC=.723, 95% CI .667-.771, P<.001) and postmortem examination (ICC=.758, 95% CI .727-.787, P<.001). Postmortem examinations performed using Glass took 42.6 seconds longer than those done with the DSLR camera (z=-2.100, P=.04 using Wilcoxon signed rank test). The battery charge of Glass quickly decreased; an average 5.5% (SD 1.85) of its battery capacity was spent per postmortem examination (0.81% per minute or 0.79% per picture).

Conclusions: Glass was efficient for acquiring images for documentation in forensic medicine, but the image quality was inferior compared to a DSLR camera. Images taken with Glass received significantly lower ratings for all 4 categories in an autopsy setting and for region of interest and brightness in postmortem examination. The effort necessary for achieving the objectives was higher when using the device compared to the DSLR camera thus extending the postmortem examination duration. Its relative high power consumption and low battery capacity is also a disadvantage. At the current stage of development, Glass may be an adequate tool for education. For deployment in clinical care, issues such as hygiene, data protection, and privacy need to be addressed and are currently limiting chances for professional use.

Keywords: Google Glass; autopsy, postmortem examination; documentation; forensic medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A typical crowded autopsy situation. On the left, the forensic pathologist is wearing Google Glass, allowing him to take pictures in a hands-free manner. On the right, the procedure is interrupted by an assistant taking a picture with a camera, which narrows the already limited space around the body.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A forensic pathologist taking a picture of the situs using Google Glass during an autopsy (left). The Blink-app app transmits the image to the laptop where it is immediately presented to the attending detective and the public prosecutor (right).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Similar phases of a postmortem on the same body with photo documentation (image anonymized for patient confidentiality). The image on the left was taken with Google Glass and the image on the right with the DSLR camera.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The forensic pathologist is taking a picture of the heart using Google Glass (left). The original image taken with the device allows viewers a first-person perspective of the structure (right).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Migliore M. Smartphones or tablets for a better communication and education between residents and consultant in a teaching hospital. J Surg Educ. 2013 Aug;70(4):437–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.03.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Székely A, Talanow R, Bágyi P. Smartphones, tablets and mobile applications for radiology. Eur J Radiol. 2013 May;82(5):829–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.034. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dexheimer JW, Borycki EM. Use of mobile devices in the emergency department. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:1086. - PubMed
    1. Google Glass. 2014. [2014-01-03]. http://www.google.com/glass/start/
    1. Google. 2014. [2014-01-03]. The Glass Explorer Program http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/

Publication types