MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316039193 · doi:10.3390/s23020919

Feasibility of Skin Water Content Imaging Using CMOS Sensors

2023· article· en· W4316039193 on OpenAlexaff
Gennadi Saiko

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)EdemaWater contentBiomedical engineeringModality (human–computer interaction)MedicineMaterials scienceSurgeryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure injuries (PI) result from pressure-induced damage to the skin and underlying tissues. Currently, Stage I PI are detected using visual skin assessments. However, this visual method is unable to detect skin color changes in persons with darkly pigmented skin, which results in a higher Stage II-IV PI incidence and PI-associated mortality in persons with a darker complexion. Thus, a more objective method of early-stage PI detection is of great importance. Optical spectroscopy is a promising modality for the noncontact diagnosis and monitoring of skin water content, capable of detecting edema and Stage I PI. The scope of the current study is to assess the feasibility of imaging the water content of the skin using Si-based sensors. We have considered two primary cases: the elevated bulk water content (edema) and localized water pool (e.g., blood vessels). These two cases were analyzed using analytical models. We found that detecting the watercontent contrast associated with edema in tissues is within the reach of Si-based sensors. However, although the effect is expected to be detectable even with consumer-grade cameras, with the current state of technologies, their use in real-world conditions faces numerous technical challenges, mainly due to the narrow dynamic range.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207