MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018868600 · doi:10.5430/jbgc.v3n3p1

Evaluation of wound healing process based on texture image analysis

2013· article· en· W2018868600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)SegmentationArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Image textureComputer scienceFractal dimensionFractal analysisImage segmentationImage processingComputer visionWound healingMathematicsMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)Biomedical engineeringFractalSurgeryImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wound healing rate remains an interesting and important issue, in which modern imaging techniques have not yet given a definitive answer. In order to guide better therapeutic interventions, a better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms driving tissue repair are required. The wound healing rate is primarily quantified by the rate of change of the wound’s surface area. The objective of this work is to establish a standardized and objective technique to assess the progress of wound healing in wounds appearing on patient’s feet, by means of texture image analysis. Image pre-processing, segmentation, texture and geometrical analysis together with visual expert’s evaluation were used to assess the wound healing process. A total of 77 digital images from 11 different subjects with foot wounds were taken every third day, for 21 days, by an inexpensive digital camera under different lighting conditions. The images were intensity normalized, and wounds were automatic segmented using a segmentation system based on snakes. From the segmented wounds, 56 different texture features and 4 different geometrical measures were extracted in order to identify features that quantify the rate of wound healing. Texture features that may indicate the progression of wound healing process were identified. More specifically, certain texture features increase (mean, contrast, roughness and radial sum), while some other texture features decrease (sum of squares variance, sum variance, sum average, entropy, coarseness, EE-laws texture energy measures and the Hurst coefficients for fractal dimension one and two analysis) with the progression of the wound healing process. These features were found to be significantly different at an observed time point during the wound healing process, when compared to previous different time points, and this could be used to indicate the rate of wound healing. No significant differences were found for all geometrical measures extracted from the wounds between different time points. Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that some texture features might be used to monitor the wound healing process, thus reducing the workload of experts, provide standardization, reduce costs, and improve the treatment quality for patients. The simplicity of the method also suggests that it may be a valuable tool in clinical wound evaluation. A larger scale study is needed to establish the application in clinical practice and for computing texture features and geometrical measures that may provide information for better and earlier differentiation of the wound healing process. Future work will incorporate additional texture features and geometrical measures for assessing the wound healing process in order to be used in the real clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it