Age-Net: An Advanced Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Age Estimation Using Orthopantomograph Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forensic odontology, recognized as a fundamental and reliable technique in human identification, frequently employs orthopantomograph images in dental biometry.Despite the introduction of various techniques for age and identity estimation, the accurate and rapid interpretation of these images remains challenging.Manual methods, currently employed by forensic experts, present numerous limitations including time consumption, human error, and challenges in handling large data sets.Addressing these limitations, this study proposes a computer-aided hybrid age detection system, Age-Net, leveraging artificial intelligence.A total of 933 orthopantomograph images, categorized into three classes, were collected from Firat University Hospital for this study.These images were subsequently resized to be compatible with pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) models, such as AlexNet, ResNet50, VGG16, SqueezeNet, EfficientNetB0, DenseNet201, and ResNet18.Following the extraction of feature vectors from these images, algorithms including Naive Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), XGBoost Algorithm, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), and Linear Discriminant (LD) were implemented for detection.The use of an array of feature extraction models and algorithms aimed to best represent the features of the dataset, thereby enhancing classification performance.The proposed system's efficacy was assessed and validated using the 5-fold cross-validation test technique and statistical Friedman test.Of all models, the EfficientNetB0-SVM hybrid model demonstrated superior performance, achieving highest accuracy, precision, sensitivity, F-score, and AUC ratios of 0.846, 0.850, 0.846, 0.846, and 0.970, respectively.This hybrid detection system, Age-Net, is projected to provide time and cost benefits to forensic experts in their clinical studies.However, the data utilized in this study are limited to specific age groups.Future research could expand the number of age groups and data to observe potential enhancements in the system's success rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".