Algorithms for Size and Color Detection of Smartphone Images of Chronic Wounds for Healthcare Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mobile app for smartphones and tablets to document pressure ulcers was previously developed. The mobile app is part of the rapidly growing field of mobile health. The mobile app replaces paper-based documentation in a healthcare facility with an electronic record. In a user trial in 2013, a key finding was the high value attributed to wound image (photograph) galleries in the mobile app and wound tracking though graphing progression. Consequently, work was undertaken to enhance the imaging features by developing image analysis algorithms for size and color determination of wounds from wound images taken with an on-board smartphone or tablet camera, using no peripheral hardware or ancillary devices in setting up the image. The reliance solely on the internal smartphone sensors to generate high-accuracy measurements brings novelty to the work and specifically in the field of wound management. The work includes three components. The first component, referred to as mask image, obtains the dimensions of an object in the image. The second component, referred to as camera calibration, reconstructs an image taken on an angle (3-D) referenced back to a 2-D plane. The third algorithm determines the range of colors present in an image, separating the image into three component colors by extracting components from the Red Green Blue format of the image, and converting output to red yellow black. An expert system and/or machine learning is recommended to enhance the correlation of wound color to wound stage.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".