MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387300153 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000353

Vision-based detection and quantification of maternal sleeping position in the third trimester of pregnancy in the home setting–Building the dataset and model

2023· article· en· W4387300153 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Allan J. Kember, Rahavi Selvarajan, Emma Park, Henry I. Huang, Hafsa Zia, Farhan Rahman, Sina Akbarian, Babak Taati, Sebastian R. Hobson, Elham Dolatabadi

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersMitacs
KeywordsSupine positionThird trimesterGuidelinePregnancyMedicineSittingPosition (finance)First trimesterBody positionGestationObstetricsPediatricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, the National Guideline Alliance for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reviewed the body of evidence, including two meta-analyses, implicating supine sleeping position as a risk factor for growth restriction and stillbirth. While they concluded that pregnant people should be advised to avoid going to sleep on their back after 28 weeks' gestation, their main critique of the evidence was that, to date, all studies were retrospective and sleeping position was not objectively measured. As such, the Alliance noted that it would not be possible to prospectively study the associations between sleeping position and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Our aim was to demonstrate the feasibility of building a vision-based model for automated and accurate detection and quantification of sleeping position throughout the third trimester-a model with the eventual goal to be developed further and used by researchers as a tool to enable them to either confirm or disprove the aforementioned associations. We completed a Canada-wide, cross-sectional study in 24 participants in the third trimester. Infrared videos of eleven simulated sleeping positions unique to pregnancy and a sitting position both with and without bed sheets covering the body were prospectively collected. We extracted 152,618 images from 48 videos, semi-randomly down-sampled and annotated 5,970 of them, and fed them into a deep learning algorithm, which trained and validated six models via six-fold cross-validation. The performance of the models was evaluated using an unseen testing set. The models detected the twelve positions, with and without bed sheets covering the body, achieving an average precision of 0.72 and 0.83, respectively, and an average recall ("sensitivity") of 0.67 and 0.76, respectively. For the supine class with and without bed sheets covering the body, the models achieved an average precision of 0.61 and 0.75, respectively, and an average recall of 0.74 and 0.81, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Digital HealthSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207