Automated vs. manual pain coding and heart rate estimations based on videos of older adults with and without dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Technological advances have allowed for the estimation of physiological indicators from video data. FaceReader™ is an automated facial analysis software that has been used widely in studies of facial expressions of emotion and was recently updated to allow for the estimation of heart rate (HR) using remote photoplethysmography (rPPG). We investigated FaceReader™-based heart rate and pain expression estimations in older adults in relation to manual coding by experts. METHODS: Using a video dataset of older adult patients with and without dementia, we assessed the relationship between FaceReader's™ HR estimations against a well-established Video Magnification (VM) algorithm during baseline and pain conditions. Furthermore, we examined the correspondence between the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)-based pain scores obtained through FaceReader™ and manual coding. RESULTS: FaceReader's™ HR estimations were correlated with VM algorithm in baseline and pain conditions. Non-verbal FaceReader™ pain scores and manual coding were also highly correlated despite discrepancies between the FaceReader™ and manual coding in the absolute value of scores based on pain-related facial action coding of the events preceding and following the pain response. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to expert manual FACS coding and optimized VM algorithm, FaceReader™ showed good results in estimating HR values and non-verbal pain scores.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".