Clinical Score Estimation for Determining Oro-Facial Dysfunction Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis manifest symptoms that affect facial motion in patients. Tracking these movements and assessing the severity of the impairment can be achieved with facial alignment technology and classification algorithms. Using the Toronto NeuroFace Dataset consisting of patients and healthy individuals performing clinical examination tasks, this study focuses on score estimation of clinical examinations to determine oro-facial dysfunction severity. Facial landmarks extracted using the 2D FAN were used to determine features under range of motion, speed of motion, and symmetry. Speech language pathologist scores from the dataset were transformed using ordinal encoding, then oversampled using random oversampling. The features and transformed scores were fed into random forest classifier models to predict a score using a scale of 1 to 4 for each feature category. The results show that the proposed method is able to estimate oro-facial dysfunction severity and classify between healthy individuals and patients. The average performance of the model setups are comparable to that of the baseline in terms of accuracy (<5% difference), accuracy±1 (<2% difference), binary accuracy (<3% difference), and specificity (<7% difference).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".