The Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Technology for the Differentiation of Fresh Human Blood Cells From Other Species Blood in the Investigation of Crime Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current study used the deep machine learning approach to differentiate human blood specimens from cow, goat, and chicken blood stains based on cell morphology. METHODS: A total of 1,955 known Giemsa-stained digitized images were acquired from the blood of humans, cows, goats, and chickens. To train the deep learning models, the well-known VGG16, Resnet18, and Resnet34 algorithms were used. Based on the image analysis, confusion matrices were generated. RESULTS: Findings showed that the F1 score for the chicken, cow, goat, and human classes were all equal to 1.0 for each of the three algorithms. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) was 1 for chickens, cows, and humans in all three algorithms, while the MCC score was 0.989 for goats by ResNet18, and it was 0.994 for both ResNet34 and VGG16 algorithms. The three algorithms showed 100% sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the human, cow, and chicken cells. For the goat cells, the data showed 100% sensitivity and negative predictive values with specificity and positive predictive values ranging from 98.5% to 99.6%. CONCLUSION: These data showed the importance of deep learning as a potential tool for the differentiation of the species of origin of fresh crime scene blood stains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".