96.5 Using Computer Vision-Based Algorithms Trained on Mobile-Device Camera Images for Monitoring Burn Wound Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The appropriate characterization of burn depth and healing is paramount. Unfortunately, the accuracy of approximating thermal injury depth among all physicians is poor. While tools to improve detection accuracy, including laser doppler imaging and laser speckle imaging exist, these technologies are expensive and limited to specialized burn referral centres. They also do not provide an easy means for quantitative, interval tracking of burn healing. Considering these limitations, the application of artificial intelligence has garnered significant interest. We herein present the use of three novel machine learning and computer vision-based algorithms to track burn wound healing. Methods Convolutional neural network (CNN) models, were trained on 1800 2D color burn images, to classify them into four burn severities. These CNNs were used to develop saliency algorithms that identify the highest “attention” pixels used to recognize burns. Image-based algorithms that count these attention pixels of the CNN, count pixels representing red granulation of burns, and measure burns, were also developed. As proof-of-concept, we tracked the healing of a localized burn on a 25-year-old female patient. The patient suffered a scald on the dorsum of the foot, resulting in a deep partial-thickness burn. Opting out of surgical intervention, the patient visited the hospital over a 6-week period for treatment with non-adhesive dressings and silver nitrate. High-resolution images of the burn, with and without a fiducial marker, were captured with a smartphone camera every 7-days. Images were taken under institutional lighting and used as algorithmic inputs. Results Data analyses indicate that the healing of the open-wound area was accurately measured in millimetres (+/- 1.7 mm error) using a fiducial marker (18.3 mm diameter). The open-wound area shrank consistently from week 1 to week 6 seen in (Figure 1. a-b). The normalized, 2D colour images, where the “red” pixel value was counted (Figure 1. a-b), confirms the reduction of the red granulation in the wound. The saliency algorithm also measured a percentage reduction in the machine learning model’s total attention pixels over the 6-week period (Figure 1. c-d). This suggests that the model was less discerning of the healing burn wound over time, suggesting burn healing, which was also clinically validated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".