ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024
Automated wound segmentation and classification of seven common injuries in forensic medicine.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic measuring of coronary atherosclerosis from medicolegal autopsy photographs based on deep learning techniques.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- The application of artificial intelligence in forensic pathology: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Automated wound care by employing a reliable U-Net architecture combined with ResNet feature encoders for monitoring chronic wounds.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In forensic medical investigations, physical injuries are documented with photographs accompanied by written reports. Automatic segmentation and classification of wounds on these photographs could provide forensic pathologists with a tool to improve the assessment of injuries and accelerate the reporting process. In this pilot study, we trained and compared several preexisting deep learning architectures for image segmentation and wound classification on forensically relevant photographs in our database. The best scores were a mean pixel accuracy of 69.4% and a mean intersection over union (IoU) of 48.6% when evaluating the trained models on our test set. The models had difficulty distinguishing the background from wounded areas. As an example, image pixels showing subcutaneous hematomas or skin abrasions were assigned to the background class in 31% of cases. Stab wounds, on the other hand, were reliably classified with a pixel accuracy of 93%. These results can be partially attributed to undefined wound boundaries for some types of injuries, such as subcutaneous hematoma. However, despite the large class imbalance, we demonstrate that the best trained models could reliably distinguish among seven of the most common wounds encountered in forensic medical investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.