MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146994234 · doi:10.1109/acii.2009.5349321

Automatically detecting pain using facial actions

2009· article· en· W2146994234 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Lucey, Jeffrey F. Cohn, Simon Lucey, Iain Matthews, Sridha Sridharan, Kenneth M. Prkachin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFrame (networking)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionDetectorLinear discriminant analysisBreathingFacial expressionPattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pain is generally measured by patient self-report, normally via verbal communication. However, if the patient is a child or has limited ability to communicate (i.e. the mute, mentally impaired, or patients having assisted breathing) self-report may not be a viable measurement. In addition, these self-report measures only relate to the maximum pain level experienced during a sequence so a frame-by-frame measure is currently not obtainable. Using image data from patients with rotator-cuff injuries, in this paper we describe an AAM-based automatic system which can detect pain on a frame-by-frame level. We do this two ways: directly (straight from the facial features); and indirectly (through the fusion of individual AU detectors). From our results, we show that the latter method achieves the optimal results as most discriminant features from each AU detector (i.e. shape or appearance) are used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207