MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899200744 · doi:10.1109/embc.2018.8513078

Detection of Atypical and Typical Infant Movements using Computer-based Video Analysis

2018· article· en· W2899200744 on OpenAlexafffund
Silvia Orlandi, Kamini Raghuram, Corinna R. Smith, David Mansueto, Paige Church, Vibhuti Shah, Maureen Luther, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMovement assessmentArtificial intelligenceCerebral palsyComputer scienceOptical flowKinematicsSegmentationMotion analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMachine learningMedicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnosis of cerebral palsy (CP) is difficult before 2 years of age. The general movements assessment (GMA) is a method for predicting CP from the spontaneous movements of infants in the first months of life. This assessment has shown high accuracy in predicting CP, but its use is limited by a lack of trained clinicians and its subjective nature. An objective and cost-effective alternative is the automatic videobased assessment of infant movements. Retrospective videos with clinical GMA outcomes were evaluated against eligibility criteria for the automatic analysis consisting of a skin model for segmentation and large displacement optical flow (LDOF) for motion tracking. Kinematic features were extracted to classify the movements as typical or atypical using different classification algorithms. Preliminary classification results obtained from the analysis of 127 videos of preterm infants showed up to 92% of accuracy in predicting CP. A computerbased assessment would provide clinicians with an objective tool for early diagnosis of CP, to facilitate early intervention and improve functional outcomes.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207