MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neonatal Face and Facial Landmark Detection from Video Recordings

2023· article· en· W4389538416 on OpenAlexaff
Ethan Grooby, Chiranjibi Sitaula, Soodeh Ahani, Liisa Holsti, Atul Malhotra, Guy A. Dumont, Faezeh Marzbanrad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandmarkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFace detectionComputer visionFace (sociological concept)Pattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningFacial recognition system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores automated face and facial landmark detection of neonates, which is an important first step in many video-based neonatal health applications, such as vital sign estimation, pain assessment, sleep-wake classification, and jaundice detection. Utilising three publicly available datasets of neonates in the clinical environment, 366 images (258 subjects) and 89 (66 subjects) were annotated for training and testing, respectively. Transfer learning was applied to two YOLO-based models, with input training images augmented with random horizontal flipping, photo-metric colour distortion, translation and scaling during each training epoch. Additionally, the re-orientation of input images and fusion of trained deep learning models was explored. Our proposed model based on YOLOv7Face outperformed existing methods with a mean average precision of 84.8% for face detection, and a normalised mean error of 0.072 for facial landmark detection. Overall, this will assist in the development of fully automated neonatal health assessment algorithms.Clinical relevance- Accurate face and facial landmark detection provides an automated and non-contact option to assist in video-based neonatal health applications.

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)0.000
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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207