| Literature DB >> 36241670 |
Ademir Franco1,2,3, Lucas Porto4, Dennis Heng1, Jared Murray1, Anna Lygate1, Raquel Franco5, Juliano Bueno6, Marilia Sobania3, Márcio M Costa7, Luiz R Paranhos8, Scheila Manica1, André Abade9.
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNN) led to important solutions in the field of Computer Vision. More recently, forensic sciences benefited from the resources of artificial intelligence, especially in procedures that normally require operator-dependent steps. Forensic tools for sexual dimorphism based on morphological dental traits are available but have limited performance. This study aimed to test the application of a machine learning setup to distinguish females and males using dentomaxillofacial features from a radiographic dataset. The sample consisted of panoramic radiographs (n = 4003) of individuals in the age interval of 6 and 22.9 years. Image annotation was performed with V7 software (V7labs, London, UK). From Scratch (FS) and Transfer Learning (TL) CNN architectures were compared, and diagnostic accuracy tests were used. TL (82%) performed better than FS (71%). The correct classifications of females and males aged ≥ 15 years were 87% and 84%, respectively. For females and males < 15 years, the correct classifications were 80% and 83%, respectively. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) from Receiver-operating Characteristic (ROC) curves showed high classification accuracy between 0.87 and 0.91. The radio-diagnostic use of CNN for sexual dimorphism showed positive outcomes and promising forensic applications to the field of dental human identification.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36241670 PMCID: PMC9568558 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21294-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Model structured for this study showing the workflow from sampling, image processing, annotation, cross-validation, training/validation to classification.
Summarized results of the metrics of the seven models evaluated in a pilot test to support the decision-making process for the selection of a network.
| CNN model | Architecture | K-fold 5 | Loss | Metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | F1-score | Precision | Recall | Specificity | ||||
DenseNet121 100 epochs Batch size=32 | TL | Fold 1 | 0.7780 | 0.8327 | 0.8193 | 0.8203 | 0.8185 | 0.9213 |
| Fold 2 | 0.6892 | 0.8227 | 0.7920 | 0.7920 | 0.7920 | 0.9112 | ||
| Fold 3 | 0.6635 | 0.8114 | 0.7804 | 0.7808 | 0.7800 | 0.9121 | ||
| Fold 4 | 0.7392 | 0.8162 | 0.8159 | 0.8169 | 0.8149 | 0.9320 | ||
| Fold 5 | 0.6757 | 0.8262 | 0.8242 | 0.8261 | 0.8224 | 0.9334 | ||
| Average | 0.7091 | 0.8218 | 0.8064 | 0.8072 | 0.8056 | 0.9220 | ||
InceptionV3 100 epochs Batch size=16 | TL | Fold 1 | 0.8517 | 0.7640 | 0.7608 | 0.7649 | 0.7573 | 0.9037 |
| Fold 2 | 0.5928 | 0.7640 | 0.7564 | 0.7615 | 0.7524 | 0.8953 | ||
| Fold 3 | 0.7088 | 0.7503 | 0.7437 | 0.7464 | 0.7414 | 0.8988 | ||
| Fold 4 | 0.6979 | 0.7712 | 0.7673 | 0.7715 | 0.7637 | 0.9095 | ||
| Fold 5 | 0.6236 | 0.7599 | 0.7588 | 0.7679 | 0.7512 | 0.9043 | ||
| Average | 0.6950 | 0.7619 | 0.7574 | 0.7625 | 0.7532 | 0.9023 | ||
Xception 100 epochs Batch size=32 | TL | Fold 1 | 0.9429 | 0.7852 | 0.7749 | 0.7758 | 0.7740 | 0.9084 |
| Fold 2 | 0.7903 | 0.8039 | 0.7732 | 0.7736 | 0.7728 | 0.9071 | ||
| Fold 3 | 1.0323 | 0.7702 | 0.7603 | 0.7610 | 0.7596 | 0.9034 | ||
| Fold 4 | 0.8688 | 0.8087 | 0.8079 | 0.8083 | 0.8075 | 0.9312 | ||
| Fold 5 | 0.9424 | 0.7875 | 0.7871 | 0.7882 | 0.7862 | 0.9233 | ||
| Average | 0.9154 | 0.7911 | 0.7807 | 0.7814 | 0.7800 | 0.9147 | ||
InceptionResNetV2 100 epochs Batch size=32 | TL | Fold 1 | 0.9598 | 0.7915 | 0.7618 | 0.7629 | 0.7608 | 0.9053 |
| Fold 2 | 0.9619 | 0.8127 | 0.8007 | 0.8024 | 0.7992 | 0.9142 | ||
| Fold 3 | 0.9329 | 0.8064 | 0.7950 | 0.7955 | 0.7944 | 0.9132 | ||
| Fold 4 | 0.8800 | 0.7962 | 0.7965 | 0.7968 | 0.7962 | 0.9272 | ||
| Fold 5 | 0.7088 | 0.8324 | 0.8324 | 0.8336 | 0.8312 | 0.9387 | ||
| Average | 0.8886 | 0.8078 | 0.7973 | 0.7982 | 0.7964 | 0.9197 | ||
CNN convolutional neural network using transfer-learning architecture.
Specifics of the CNN architectures applied and tested in this study.
| Model | Size (MB) | Parameters (M) | Depth | Image size | Hyperparameters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimization algorithm | Batch size | Momentum | Weight decay | Learning rate | |||||
| DenseNet121 | 33 | 8.1 | 121 | 224 × 224 | SGD | 32 | 0.9 | 1e-4 ~ 1e-6 | Base Ir = 0.001 Max Ir = 0.00006 Step size = 100 Mode: triangular |
| ResNet50 | 98 | 25.6 | 107 | 224 × 224 | |||||
| ResNet101 | 171 | 44.7 | 209 | 224 × 224 | |||||
| Xception | 88 | 22.9 | 81 | 299 × 299 | |||||
| InceptionV3 | 92 | 23.9 | 189 | 299 × 299 | |||||
| InceptionResNetV2 | 215 | 55.9 | 449 | 299 × 299 | |||||
| VGG16 | 526 | 138.4 | 16 | 224 × 224 | |||||
| MobileNetV2 | 14 | 3.5 | 105 | 224 × 224 | |||||
CNN Convolutional Neural Network, MB MegaBytes, M Million Parameters, SGD Stochastic Gradient Descent.
Image data augmentation layers and parameters.
| Layer | Parameter |
|---|---|
| RandomTranslation | height_factor = 0.1, width_factor = 0.1, fill_mode = ’reflect’ |
| RandomFlip | mode = ’horizontal_and_vertical’ |
| RandomRotation | factor = 0.1, fill_mode = ’reflect’, interpolation = ’bilinear’ |
| RandomContrast | factor = 0.1 |
Diagnostic metrics used to evaluate the performance of the investigated CNN architectures.
| Metrics | Description |
|---|---|
| Loss | A loss function indicates how well the model assimilates the dataset. The loss function will output a higher value if the predictions are off the actual target. Since our problem/question relies on a multi-class classification, we used cross-entropy within our loss function |
| Accuracy | The accuracy of a machine learning classification algorithm is one way to measure how often the algorithm classifies a data point correctly. This can be understood as the number of items correctly identified as either true positive or true negative out of the total number of items |
| F1-score | Represents the average of precision and recall and measures the effectiveness of identification when recall and precision have balanced importance |
| Precision | Agreement of true class labels with machine’s predictions. It is calculated by summing all true positives and false positives in the system, across all classes |
| Recall | Effectiveness of a classifier to identify class labels. It is calculated by summing all true positives and false negatives in the system, across all classes |
| Specificity | Known as the true negative rate. This function calculates the proportion of actual negative cases that have gotten predicted as negative by our model |
CNN convolutional neural network.
Quantified performances of DenseNet121 with FS and TL architectures.
| CNN model | Architecture | K-fold 5 | Metrics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loss | Accuracy | F1-score | Precision | Recall | Specificity | |||
DenseNet121 100 epochs Batch size = 32 | FS | Fold 1 | 0.6835 | 0.7215 | 0.7104 | 0.7272 | 0.6959 | 0.8705 |
| Fold 2 | 0.6175 | 0.7166 | 0.6863 | 0.6916 | 0.6814 | 0.8627 | ||
| Fold 3 | 0.6203 | 0.7141 | 0.7093 | 0.7133 | 0.7055 | 0.8719 | ||
| Fold 4 | 0.6174 | 0.7200 | 0.7200 | 0.7284 | 0.7124 | 0.8840 | ||
| Fold 5 | 0.7234 | 0.7099 | 0.7061 | 0.7187 | 0.6949 | 0.8844 | ||
| Average | 0.6524 | 0.7164 | 0.7064 | 0.7159 | 0.6980 | 0.8747 | ||
| TL | Fold 1 | 0.7780 | 0.8327 | 0.8193 | 0.8203 | 0.8185 | 0.9213 | |
| Fold 2 | 0.6892 | 0.8227 | 0.7920 | 0.7920 | 0.7920 | 0.9112 | ||
| Fold 3 | 0.6635 | 0.8114 | 0.7804 | 0.7808 | 0.7800 | 0.9121 | ||
| Fold 4 | 0.7392 | 0.8162 | 0.8159 | 0.8169 | 0.8149 | 0.9320 | ||
| Fold 5 | 0.6757 | 0.8262 | 0.8242 | 0.8261 | 0.8224 | 0.9334 | ||
| Average | 0.7091 | 0.8218 | 0.8064 | 0.8072 | 0.8056 | 0.9220 | ||
FS from scratch, TL transfer learning.
Figure 2Graphs representing the loss and evolutionary accuracy of the training process and learning validation with From Scratch (FS) architecture in DenseNet121.
Figure 3Graphs representing the loss and evolutionary accuracy of the training process and learning validation with Transfer Learning (TL) architecture in DenseNet121.
Figure 4Normalized Confusion Matrix with the classification frequencies for each group set in the learning model. Outcomes presented for DenseNet121 using From Scratch (FS) and Transfer Learning (TL) architectures.
Figure 5Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves to MultiClass analyses using DenseNet121 with From Scratch (FS) and Transfer Learning (TL) architectures.
Figure 6Samples of images representing the four classes used for the classification process with the representation of the Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) and the scaled representation of the heatmap.