A deep learning framework to scale linear facial measurements to actual size using horizontal visible iris diameter: a study on an Iranian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital images allow for the objective evaluation of facial appearance and abnormalities as well as treatment outcomes and stability. With the advancement of technology, manual clinical measurements can be replaced with fully automatic photographic assessments. However, obtaining millimetric measurements on photographs does not provide clinicians with their actual value due to different image magnification ratios. A deep learning tool was developed to estimate linear measurements on images with unknown magnification using the iris diameter. A framework was designed to segment the eyes' iris and calculate the horizontal visible iris diameter (HVID) in pixels. A constant value of 12.2 mm was assigned as the HVID value in all the photographs. A vertical and a horizontal distance were measured in pixels on photographs of 94 subjects and were estimated in millimeters by calculating the magnification ratio using HVID. Manual measurement of the distances was conducted on the subjects and the actual and estimated amounts were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. The obtained error was calculated as mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 2.9% and 4.3% in horizontal and vertical measurements. Our study shows that due to the consistent size and narrow range of HVID values, the iris diameter can be used as a reliable scale to calibrate the magnification of the images to obtain precise measurements in further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".