Smartphone Integration of Artificial Intelligence for Automated Plagiocephaly Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positional plagiocephaly is a pediatric condition with important cosmetic implications affecting ∼40% of infants under 12 months of age. Early diagnosis and treatment initiation is imperative in achieving satisfactory outcomes; improved diagnostic modalities are needed to support this goal. This study aimed to determine whether a smartphone-based artificial intelligence tool could diagnose positional plagiocephaly. Methods: A prospective validation study was conducted at a large tertiary care center with two recruitment sites: (1) newborn nursery, (2) pediatric craniofacial surgery clinic. Eligible children were aged 0-12 months with no history of hydrocephalus, intracranial tumors, intracranial hemorrhage, intracranial hardware, or prior craniofacial surgery. Successful artificial intelligence diagnosis required identification of the presence and severity of positional plagiocephaly. Results: A total of 89 infants were prospectively enrolled from the craniofacial surgery clinic (n = 25, 17 male infants [68%], eight female infants [32%], mean age 8.44 months) and newborn nursery (n = 64, 29 male infants [45%], 25 female infants [39%], mean age 0 months). The model obtained a diagnostic accuracy of 85.39% compared with a standard clinical examination with a disease prevalence of 48%. Sensitivity was 87.50% [95% CI, 75.94-98.42] with a specificity of 83.67% [95% CI, 72.35-94.99]. Precision was 81.40%, while likelihood ratios (positive and negative) were 5.36 and 0.15, respectively. The F1-score was 84.34%. Conclusions: The smartphone-based artificial intelligence algorithm accurately diagnosed positional plagiocephaly in a clinical environment. This technology may provide value by helping guide specialist consultation and enabling longitudinal quantitative monitoring of cranial shape.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".