MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285130490 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3181167

NICUface: Robust Neonatal Face Detection in Complex NICU Scenes

2022· article· en· W4285130490 on OpenAlexaff
Yasmina Souley Dosso, Daniel G. Kyrollos, Kim Greenwood, JoAnn Harrold, James R. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersScience and Engineering Research Council
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceNeonatal intensive care unitArtificial intelligenceFace detectionFace (sociological concept)Facial recognition systemDetectorComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)MedicinePediatricsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of non-contact patient monitoring applications for the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is an active research area, particularly in facial video analysis. Recent studies have used facial video data to estimate vital signs, assess pain from facial expression, differentiate sleep-wake status, detect jaundice, and in face recognition. These applications depend on an accurate definition of the patient’s face as a region of interest (ROI). Most studies have required manual ROI definition, while others have leveraged automated face detectors developed for adult patients, without systematic validation for the neonatal population. To overcome these issues, this paper first evaluates the state-of-the-art in face detection in the NICU setting. Finding that such methods often fail in complex NICU environments, we demonstrate how fine-tuning can increase neonatal face detector robustness, resulting in our NICUface models. A large and diverse neonatal dataset was gathered from actual patients admitted to the NICU across three studies and gold standard face annotations were completed. In comparison to state-of-the-art face detectors, our NICUface models address NICU-specific challenges such as ongoing clinical intervention, phototherapy lighting, occlusions from hospital equipment, etc. These analyses culminate in the creation of robust NICUface detectors with improvements on our most challenging neonatal dataset of +36.14, +35.86, and +32.19 in AP30, AP50, and mAP respectively, relative to state-of-the-art CE-CLM, MTCNN, img2pose, RetinaFace, and YOLO5Face models. Face orientation estimation is also addressed, leading to an accuracy of 99.45%. Fine-tuned NICUface models, gold-standard face annotation data, and the face orientation estimation method are also released here.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207