MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377000063 · doi:10.1620/tjem.2023.j041

Deep Learning-Based Diagnosis of Fatal Hypothermia Using Post-Mortem Computed Tomography

2023· article· en· W4377000063 on OpenAlexaff
Yuwen Zeng, Xiaoyong Zhang, Issei Yoshizumi, Zhang Zhang, Taihei Mizuno, Shota Sakamoto, Yusuke Kawasumi, Akihito Usui, Kei Ichiji, Ivo Bukovský, Masato Funayama, Noriyasu Homma

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsMedicineVascularityHypothermiaAutopsyComputed tomographyRadiologyForensic pathologyPathologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forensic medicine, fatal hypothermia diagnosis is not always easy because findings are not specific, especially if traumatized. Post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT) is a useful adjunct to the cause-of-death diagnosis and some qualitative image character analysis, such as diffuse hyperaeration with decreased vascularity or pulmonary emphysema, have also been utilized for fatal hypothermia. However, it is challenging for inexperienced forensic pathologists to recognize the subtle differences of fatal hypothermia in PMCT images. In this study, we developed a deep learning-based diagnosis system for fatal hypothermia and explored the possibility of being an alternative diagnostic for forensic pathologists. An in-house dataset of forensic autopsy proven samples was used for the development and performance evaluation of the deep learning system. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the system for evaluation, and a human-expert comparable AUC value of 0.905, sensitivity of 0.948, and specificity of 0.741 were achieved. The experimental results clearly demonstrated the usefulness and feasibility of the deep learning system for fatal hypothermia diagnosis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Tohoku Journal of Experimental MedicineSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207