ArticleCureus2024
The Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Technology for the Differentiation of Fresh Human Blood Cells From Other Species' Blood in the Investigation of Crime Scenes.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe current study used the deep machine learning approach to differentiate human blood specimens from cow, goat, and chicken blood stains based on cell morphology.
methodsA 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.
resultsFindings 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%.
conclusionThese 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.
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.