| Literature DB >> 35877324 |
Jiaqi Qiang1,2, Danning Wu1,2, Hanze Du1, Huijuan Zhu1, Shi Chen1, Hui Pan1,3.
Abstract
Diseases not only manifest as internal structural and functional abnormalities, but also have facial characteristics and appearance deformities. Specific facial phenotypes are potential diagnostic markers, especially for endocrine and metabolic syndromes, genetic disorders, facial neuromuscular diseases, etc. The technology of facial recognition (FR) has been developed for more than a half century, but research in automated identification applied in clinical medicine has exploded only in the last decade. Artificial-intelligence-based FR has been found to have superior performance in diagnosis of diseases. This interdisciplinary field is promising for the optimization of the screening and diagnosis process and assisting in clinical evaluation and decision-making. However, only a few instances have been translated to practical use, and there is need of an overview for integration and future perspectives. This review mainly focuses on the leading edge of technology and applications in varieties of disease, and discusses implications for further exploration.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; automated identification; disease diagnosis; facial recognition
Year: 2022 PMID: 35877324 PMCID: PMC9311612 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9070273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Facial Analysis Algorithms.
| Category | Algorithm |
|---|---|
| Appearance-based | Principal Component Analysis (PCA) |
| Feature-based | Geometric Features |
| Deep learning | Probabilistic-Decision-Based Neural Networks (PDBNN) |
Figure 1Workflow of facial recognition in disease diagnosis.
Studies of facial-recognition-based diagnosis system for genetic disorders.
| Study | Disease | Method | Sample Size | Efficacy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basel-Vanagaite et al. [ | Cornelia de Lange syndrome | FDNA | 31 cases in training set, 17 cases in testing set | Accuracy = 87% (training), accuracy = 94% (testing) |
| Latorre-Pellicer et al. [ | Cornelia de Lange syndrome | Face2Gene | 49 cases | Accuracy = 83.7% |
| Hadj-Rabia et al. [ | X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia | Face2Gene | 136 cases, 717 controls | AUC ≥ 0.98 |
| Liehr et al. [ | Emanuel syndrome (ES) | Face2Gene | 59 ES, 70 PKS, 973 controls, 973 others | AUC ≥ 0.98 |
| Amudhavalli et al. [ | Aymé-Gripp syndrome | Face2Gene | 13 cases, 20 controls, 20 DS | AUC = 0.994 (controls), AUC = 0.994 (DS) |
| Pode-Shakked et al. [ | Mucolipidosis type IV | Face2Gene | 26 cases, 98 controls, 99 others | AUC = 0.822 (controls), AUC = 0.885 (others) |
| Wang et al. [ | Kabuki syndrome | Face2Gene | 14 cases | Accuracy = 93% |
| AbdAlmageed et al. [ | Congenital adrenal hyperplasia | DNN | 102 cases, 144 controls | AUC = 92% |
| Porras et al. [ | Noonan syndrome (NS) | LBP, SVM | 286 NS, 161 WBS | Accuracy = 85.68% |
Abbreviations and explanations: cases, patients; controls, patients without genetic disorders; others, patients with other genetic disorders; FDNA, facial dysmorphology novel analysis; Face2Gene (FDNA Inc., Boston, MA, USA); AUC, area under the curve; DS, Down syndrome; DNN, Deep Neural Network; LBP, Local Binary Pattern; SVM, Support Vector Machines.
Facial-recognition-based diagnosis system for neurodegenerative diseases.
| Study | Disease | Data | Sample Size | Method | Efficacy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bandini et al. [ | PD | Video | 17 PD, 17 HC | Intraface tracking algorithm, Euclidean distance, SVM | Difference ( |
| Rajnoha et al. [ | PD | Image | 50 PD, 50 HC | Random Forests, XGBoost | Accuracy = 67.33% |
| Jin et al. [ | PD | Video | 33 PD, 31 HC | Face++ [ | Precision = 86% |
| Ali et al. [ | PD | Video | 61 PD, 543 HC | OpenFace 2.0 [ | Accuracy = 95.6% |
| Hou et al. [ | PD | Video | 70 PD, 70 HC | HOG, LBP, SVM, k-NN, Random Forests | F1 = 88% |
| Nam et al. [ | AD | Video | 17 AD, 17 HC | OpenFace 2.0 [ | Difference ( |
| Umeda et al. [ | AD | Image | 121 AD, 117 HC | Xception, SENet50, ResNet50, VGG16, and simple CNN with SGD and Adam optimizer | Xception with Adam showed the best accuracy = 94% |
| Bandini et al. [ | ALS | Video | 11 ALS, 11 HC | AAM, CLM, ERT, SDM, FAN | Accuracy = 88.9% |
Abbreviations and explanations: PD, Parkinson’s disease; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; HC, healthy control; SVM, Support Vector Machines; LSTM, Long Short-Term Memory; HOG, Histogram of Oriented Gradient; LBP, Local Binary Pattern; k-NN, k-Nearest Neighbors; AAM, active appearance models; CLM, constrained local model; ERT, ensemble of regression trees; SDM, supervised descent method; FAN, face alignment network.