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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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