Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35275923›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Automatic wound detection and size estimation using deep learning algorithms.

Héctor Carrión, Mohammad Jafari, Michelle Dawn Bagood, Hsin-Ya Yang, Roslyn Rivkah Isseroff, Marcella Gomez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [An Improved Faster R-CNN Method for Wound Detection].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Article
  4. Characterization of cutaneous wound healing in swine.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Héctor CarriónDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.
Mohammad JafariDepartment of Earth and Space Sciences, Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4720-6159
Michelle Dawn BagoodDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9639-5654
Hsin-Ya YangDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5325-494X
Roslyn Rivkah IsseroffDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7813-0858
Marcella GomezDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.

Funding

Training SubprojectU54HG007990 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI HAUSSLER, DAVID H, PATTERSON, DAVID · 2014 to 2018
$14.8M
Increasing Diversity in Interdisciplinary BD2K (IDI-BD2K)R25MD010399 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RIO PIEDRAS · PI GARCIA-ARRARAS, JOSE E, ORDONEZ, PATRICIA · 2015 to 2020
$1.3M
Innovative Research Education and Articulation in the Preparation of Under-represented and First Generation Students for Careers in Biomedical Big Data ScienceR25MD010391 · NIMHD · CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, MONTEREY BAY · PI CANNER, JUDITH ELENA · 2015 to 2019
$1.0M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG007990NIMHD NIH HHS R25 MD010391NIMHD NIH HHS R25 MD010399
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluating and tracking wound size is a fundamental metric for the wound assessment process. Good location and size estimates can enable proper diagnosis and effective treatment. Traditionally, laboratory wound healing studies include a collection of images at uniform time intervals exhibiting the wounded area and the healing process in the test animal, often a mouse. These images are then manually observed to determine key metrics -such as wound size progress- relevant to the study. However, this task is a time-consuming and laborious process. In addition, defining the wound edge could be subjective and can vary from one individual to another even among experts. Furthermore, as our understanding of the healing process grows, so does our need to efficiently and accurately track these key factors for high throughput (e.g., over large-scale and long-term experiments). Thus, in this study, we develop a deep learning-based image analysis pipeline that aims to intake non-uniform wound images and extract relevant information such as the location of interest, wound only image crops, and wound periphery size over-time metrics. In particular, our work focuses on images of wounded laboratory mice that are used widely for translationally relevant wound studies and leverages a commonly used ring-shaped splint present in most images to predict wound size. We apply the method to a dataset that was never meant to be quantified and, thus, presents many visual challenges. Additionally, the data set was not meant for training deep learning models and so is relatively small in size with only 256 images. We compare results to that of expert measurements and demonstrate preservation of information relevant to predicting wound closure despite variability from machine-to-expert and even expert-to-expert. The proposed system resulted in high fidelity results on unseen data with minimal human intervention. Furthermore, the pipeline estimates acceptable wound sizes when less than 50% of the images are missing reference objects.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsAnimalsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMiceWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID35275923
PMCPMC8942216

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.