Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37378809›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024

Automated wound segmentation and classification of seven common injuries in forensic medicine.

Norio Zimmermann, Till Sieberth, Akos Dobay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Norio ZimmermannZurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Till Sieberth *Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Akos Dobay *Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland. akos.dobay@uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-6492-9298

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Forensic MedicineHematomaPhotographyWounds and InjuriesDeep LearningHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPilot ProjectsDeep learningForensic sciencesImage segmentationWound classification

Identifiers

PMID37378809
PMCPMC11297066

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.