MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394892681 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irae036.129

130 Comparing Artificial Intelligence Guided Image Assessment to Current Methods of Burn Assessment

2024· article· en· W4394892681 on OpenAlexaff
Justin J. Lee, Mahla Abdolahnejad, Alexander Morzycki, Hannah Chan, Rakesh Joshi, Collin Hong, Joshua N. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSKiN HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCurrent (fluid)Artificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Appropriate identification of burn depth and size is paramount. Despite the development of assessment aids [e.g., laser doppler imaging (LDI)], clinical assessment remains a gold standard, which assesses partial thickness burn depth with ~67% accuracy. We sought to develop an image-based artificial intelligence system that predicts burn severity and wound margins for use as a triaging tool in the community. Methods Modified EfficientNet architecture trained by 1684 mobile-device-captured burn datasets of different burn depths were previously utilized to create a convoluted neural network (CNN). The CNN was modified to a novel Boundary-Attention Mapping (BAM) algorithm using elements of saliency mapping, which was utilized to recognize the boundaries of burns. For validation, 144 patient charts that included clinical assessment, burn location, total body surface area, and LDI assessment were retrieved for a retrospective study at an academic burn center. The clinical images underwent CNN-BAM assessment and were directly compared with the LDI assessment. Results A CNN using a four-level burn severity classification achieved an accuracy of 85% (micro/macro-averaged ROC scores). The CNN-BAM system can successfully highlight burns from surrounding tissue with high confidence. Our method's burn area segmentations attained an accuracy of 91.60%, sensitivity of 78.17%, and specificity of 93.37%, when compared to LDI methodology and conducting a pixel-wise comparison of LDI’s from 104 patients (Figure 1). Results comparing the CNN-BAM outputs to clinical and LDI assessments have shown a high degree of correlation between the CNN-BAM burn severity predictions to those extrapolated from LDI healing potential (66% agreement Cohen’s Kappa analysis). This is in comparison to clinical vs LDI assessment, which had 28% agreement, and clinical vs CNN-BAM, which had 32% agreement (Figure 2). Conclusions CNN-BAM algorithm gives equivalent accuracy in detecting burn depth as LDI with a more economical and accessible application when embedded in a mobile device. Applicability of Research to Practice CNN-BAM algorithm can be embedded in a mobile application, which can be easily accessible to healthcare providers to rapidly assess burn depth. This can be especially useful in rural communities to accurately assess and transfer patients to specialized burn centres and reduce unnecessary transfers when injuries are less severe.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207