Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955227›Full record

ArticleComputational intelligence and neuroscience2018

A Composite Model of Wound Segmentation Based on Traditional Methods and Deep Neural Networks.

Fangzhao Li, Changjian Wang, Xiaohui Liu, Yuxing Peng, Shiyao Jin

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fangzhao LiScience and Technology on Parallel and Distributed Laboratory, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8064-3510
Changjian WangCollege of Computer, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China.
Xiaohui LiuScience and Technology on Parallel and Distributed Laboratory, Changsha, China.
Yuxing PengScience and Technology on Parallel and Distributed Laboratory, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8223-5588
Shiyao JinScience and Technology on Parallel and Distributed Laboratory, Changsha, China.
Changsha University of Science and Technology · CNNational University of Defense Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound segmentation plays an important supporting role in the wound observation and wound healing. Current methods of image segmentation include those based on traditional process of image and those based on deep neural networks. The traditional methods use the artificial image features to complete the task without large amounts of labeled data. Meanwhile, the methods based on deep neural networks can extract the image features effectively without the artificial design, but lots of training data are required. Combined with the advantages of them, this paper presents a composite model of wound segmentation. The model uses the skin with wound detection algorithm we designed in the paper to highlight image features. Then, the preprocessed images are segmented by deep neural networks. And semantic corrections are applied to the segmentation results at last. The model shows a good performance in our experiment.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningSkinWound HealingWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID29955227
PMCPMC6000917
OpenAlexW2806928165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.