Automated Temporal Segmentation of Orofacial Assessment Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer vision techniques can help automate or partially automate clinical examination of orofacial impairments to provide accurate and objective assessments. Towards the development of such automated systems, we evaluated two approaches to detect and temporally segment (parse) repetitions in orofacial assessment videos. Recorded videos of participants with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and healthy control (HC) individuals were obtained from the Toronto NeuroFace Dataset. Two approaches for repetition detection and parsing were examined: one based on engineered features from tracked facial landmarks and peak detection in the distance between the vermilion-cutaneous junction of the upper and lower lips (baseline analysis), and another using a pre-trained transformer-based deep learning model called RepNet (Dwibedi et al, 2020), which automatically detects periodicity, and parses periodic and semi-periodic repetitions in video data. In experimental evaluation of two orofacial assessments tasks, - repeating maximum mouth opening (OPEN) and repeating the sentence "Buy Bobby a Puppy" (BBP) - RepNet provided better parsing than the landmark-based approach, quantified by higher mean intersection-over-union (IoU) with respect to ground truth manual parsing. Automated parsing using RepNet also clearly separated HC and ALS participants based on the duration of BBP repetitions, whereas the landmark-based method could not.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".