An Automated Framework for Patient Identification and Verification Using Deep Learning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated patient identification and verification are very important at a medical emergency and when patients are not carrying his/her identity. It is a risk factor that identifying the correct patient identity for doctors to provide medical treatment. The majority of the identification or verification is being done by wristbands, RFID tags, fingerprint, face detection by using handcraft feature-based face recognition systems. A new framework based on robust deep learning model and contrast enhancement is proposed in this paper. In the proposed work, the light illumination problem has been addressed by the contrast enhancement technique for deep learning models to recognize the face. It is proved that the inclusion of contrast enhancement is improving patient identification and verification. To evaluate the deep learning framework, the proposed deep learning models have been trained on our own dataset and have been tested with a real-time medical providing agency. The experimental results show that the proposed framework exhibits more robust test results with accuracy than existing hand-crafted techniques under the live webcam video capture for the real-time patient detection system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it