MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389443341 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-49031-2

Fully automated deep learning models with smartphone applicability for prediction of pain using the Feline Grimace Scale

2023· article· en· W4389443341 on OpenAlexafffund
Paulo V. Steagall, Beatriz P. Monteiro, Sabrine Marangoni, Mohamad Moussa, Miguel Sautié

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceLandmarkMean squared errorComputer scienceDeep learningArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Predictive modellingMachine learningScale (ratio)StatisticsMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(FGS). A total of 3447 face images of cats were annotated with 37 landmarks. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) were trained and selected according to size, prediction time, predictive performance (normalized root mean squared error, NRMSE) and suitability for smartphone technology. Geometric descriptors (n = 35) were computed. XGBoost models were trained and selected according to predictive performance (accuracy; mean square error, MSE). For prediction of facial landmarks, the best CNN model had NRMSE of 16.76% (ShuffleNetV2). For prediction of FGS scores, the best XGBoost model had accuracy of 95.5% and MSE of 0.0096. Models showed excellent predictive performance and accuracy to discriminate painful and non-painful cats. This technology can now be used for the development of an automated, smartphone application for acute pain assessment in cats.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207