Computer Vision-Based Automated Non-Contact Metrology Framework for Mechanical Component Evaluation

This dialogue is from an early scene in the 2014 film Ex Machina, in which Nathan has invited Caleb to determine whether Nathan has succeeded in creating artificial intelligence.1 The achievement of powerful artificial general intelligence has long held a grip on our imagination not only for its exciting as well as worrisome possibilities, but also for its suggestion of a new, uncharted era for humanity. In opening his 2021 BBC Reith Lectures, titled "Living with Artificial Intelligence," Stuart Russell states that "the eventual emergence of general-purpose artificial intelligence [will be] the biggest event in human history."2Over the last decade, a rapid succession of impressive results has brought wider public attention to the possibilities of powerful artificial intelligence. In machine vision, researchers demonstrated systems that could recognize objects as well as, if not better than, humans in some situations. Then came the games. Complex games of strategy have long been associated with superior intelligence, and so when AI systems beat the best human players at chess, Atari games, Go, shogi, StarCraft, and Dota, the world took notice. It was not just that Als beat humans (although that was astounding when it first happened), but the escalating progression of how they did it: initially by learning from expert human play, then from self-play, then by teaching themselves the principles of the games from the ground up, eventually yielding single systems that could learn, play, and win at several structurally different games, hinting at the possibility of generally intelligent systems.3Speech recognition and natural language processing have also seen rapid and headline-grabbing advances. Most impressive has been the emergence recently of large language models capable of generating human-like outputs. Progress in language is of particular significance given the role language has always played in human notions of intelligence, reasoning, and understanding. While the advances mentioned thus far may seem abstract, those in driverless cars and robots have been more tangible given their embodied and often biomorphic forms. Demonstrations of such embodied systems exhibiting increasingly complex and autonomous behaviors in our physical world have captured public attention.Also in the headlines have been results in various branches of science in which AI and its related techniques have been used as tools to advance research from materials and environmental sciences to high energy physics and astronomy.4 A few highlights, such as the spectacular results on the fifty-year-old protein-folding problem by AlphaFold, suggest the possibility that AI could soon help tackle science's hardest problems, such as in health and the life sciences.5While the headlines tend to feature results and demonstrations of a future to come, AI and its associated technologies are already here and pervade our daily lives more than many realize. Examples include recommendation systems, search, language translators - now covering more than one hundred languages - facial recognition, speech to text (and back), digital assistants, chatbots for customer service, fraud detection, decision support systems, energy management systems, and tools for scientific research, to name a few. In all these examples and others, AI-related techniques have become components of other software and hardware systems as methods for learning from and incorporating messy real-world inputs into inferences, predictions, and, in some cases, actions. As director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, Nick Bostrom noted back in 2006, "A lot of cutting-edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore."6As the scope, use, and usefulness of these systems have grown for individual users, researchers in various fields, companies and other types of organizations, and governments, so too have concerns when the systems have not worked well (such as bias in facial recognition systems), or have been misused (as in deepfakes), or have resulted in harms to some (in predicting crime, for example), or have been associated with accidents (such as fatalities from self-driving cars).7Dædalus last devoted a volume to the topic of artificial intelligence in 1988, with contributions from several of the founders of the field, among others. Much of that issue was concerned with questions of whether research in AI was making progress, of whether AI was at a turning point, and of its foundations, mathematical, technical, and philosophical-with much disagreement. However, in that volume there was also a recognition, or perhaps a rediscovery, of an alternative path toward AI - the connectionist learning approach and the notion of neural nets-and a burgeoning optimism for this approach's potential. Since the 1960s, the learning approach had been relegated to the fringes in favor of the symbolic formalism for representing the world, our knowledge of it, and how machines can reason about it. Yet no essay captured some of the mood at the time better than Hilary Putnam's "Much Ado About Not Very Much." Putnam questioned the Dædalus issue itself: "Why a whole issue of Dædalus? Why don't we wait until AI achieves something and then have an issue?" He concluded:This volume of Dædalus is indeed the first since 1988 to be devoted to artificial intelligence. This volume does not rehash the same debates; much else has happened since, mostly as a result of the success of the machine learning approach that was being rediscovered and reimagined, as discussed in the 1988 volume. This issue aims to capture where we are in AI's development and how its growing uses impact society. The themes and concerns herein are colored by my own involvement with AI. Besides the television, films, and books that I grew up with, my interest in AI began in earnest in 1989 when, as an undergraduate at the University of Zimbabwe, I undertook a research project to model and train a neural network.9 I went on to do research on AI and robotics at Oxford. Over the years, I have been involved with researchers in academia and labs developing AI systems, studying AI's impact on the economy, tracking AI's progress, and working with others in business, policy, and labor grappling with its opportunities and challenges for society.10The authors of the twenty-five essays in this volume range from AI scientists and technologists at the frontier of many of AI's developments to social scientists at the forefront of analyzing AI's impacts on society. The volume is organized into ten sections. Half of the sections are focused on AI's development, the other half on its intersections with various aspects of society. In addition to the diversity in their topics, expertise, and vantage points, the authors bring a range of views on the possibilities, benefits, and concerns for society. I am grateful to the authors for accepting my invitation to write these essays.Before proceeding further, it may be useful to say what we mean by artificial intelligence. The headlines and increasing pervasiveness of AI and its associated technologies have led to some conflation and confusion about what exactly counts as AI. This has not been helped by the current trend-among researchers in science and the humanities, startups, established companies, and even governments-to associate anything involving not only machine learning, but data science, algorithms, robots, and automation of all sorts with AI. This could simply reflect the hype now associated with AI, but it could also be an acknowledgment of the success of the current wave of AI and its related techniques and their wide-ranging use and usefulness. I think both are true; but it has not always been like this. In the period now referred to as the AI winter, during which progress in AI did not live up to expectations, there was a reticence to associate most of what we now call AI with AI.Two types of definitions are typically given for AI. The first are those that suggest that it is the ability to artificially do what intelligent beings, usually human, can do. For example, artificial intelligence is:The human abilities invoked in such definitions include visual perception, speech recognition, the capacity to reason, solve problems, discover meaning, generalize, and learn from experience. Definitions of this type are considered by some to be limiting in their human-centricity as to what counts as intelligence and in the benchmarks for success they set for the development of AI (more on this later). The second type of definitions try to be free of human-centricity and define an intelligent agent or system, whatever its origin, makeup, or method, as:This type of definition also suggests the pursuit of goals, which could be given to the system, self-generated, or learned.13 That both types of definitions are employed throughout this volume yields insights of its own.These definitional distinctions notwithstanding, the term AI, much to the chagrin of some in the field, has come to be what cognitive and computer scientist Marvin Minsky called a "suitcase word."14 It is packed variously, depending on who you ask, with approaches for achieving intelligence, including those based on logic, probability, information and control theory, neural networks, and various other learning, inference, and planning methods, as well as their instantiations in software, hardware, and, in the case of embodied intelligence, systems that can perceive, move, and manipulate objects.Three questions cut through the discussions in this volume: 1) Where are we in AI's development? 2) What opportunities and challenges does AI pose for society? 3) How much about AI is really about us?Notions of intelligent machines date all the way back to antiquity.15 Philosophers, too, among them Hobbes, Leibnitz, and Descartes, have been dreaming about AI for a long time; Daniel Dennett suggests that Descartes may have even anticipated the Turing Test.16 The idea of computation-based machine intelligence traces to Alan Turing's invention of the universal Turing machine in the 1930s, and to the ideas of several of his contemporaries in the mid-twentieth century. But the birth of artificial intelligence as we know it and the use of the term is generally attributed to the now famed Dartmouth summer workshop of 1956. The workshop was the result of a proposal for a two-month summer project by John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude Shannon whereby "An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves."17In their respective contributions to this volume, "From So Simple a Beginning: Species of Artificial Intelligence" and "If We Succeed," and in different but complementary ways, Nigel Shadbolt and Stuart Russell chart the key ideas and developments in AI, its periods of excitement as well as the aforementioned AI winters. The current AI spring has been underway since the 1990s, with headline-grabbing breakthroughs appearing in rapid succession over the last ten years or so: a period that Jeffrey Dean describes in the title of his essay as a "golden decade," not only for the pace of AI development but also its use in a wide range of sectors of society, as well as areas of scientific research.18 This period is best characterized by the approach to achieve artificial intelligence through learning from experience, and by the success of neural networks, deep learning, and reinforcement learning, together with methods from probability theory, as ways for machines to learn.19A brief history may be useful here: In the 1950s, there were two dominant visions of how to achieve machine intelligence. One vision was to use computers to create a logic and symbolic representation of the world and our knowledge of it and, from there, create systems that could reason about the world, thus exhibiting intelligence akin to the mind. This vision was most espoused by Allen Newell and Hebert Simon, along with Marvin Minsky and others. Closely associated with it was the "heuristic search" approach that supposed intelligence was essentially a problem of exploring a space of possibilities for answers. The second vision was inspired by the brain, rather than the mind, and sought to achieve intelligence by learning. In what became known as the connectionist approach, units called perceptrons were connected in ways inspired by the connection of neurons in the brain. At the time, this approach was most associated with Frank Rosenblatt. While there was initial excitement about both visions, the first came to dominate, and did so for decades, with some successes, including so-called expert systems.Not only did this approach benefit from championing by its advocates and plentiful funding, it came with the suggested weight of a long intellectual tradition-exemplified by Descartes, Boole, Frege, Russell, and Church, among others-that sought to manipulate symbols and to formalize and axiomatize knowledge and reasoning. It was only in the late 1980s that interest began to grow again in the second vision, largely through the work of David Rumelhart, Geoffrey Hinton, James McClelland, and others. The history of these two visions and the associated philosophical ideas are discussed in Hubert Dreyfus and Stuart Dreyfus's 1988 Dædalus essay "Making a Mind Versus Modeling the Brain: Artificial Intelligence Back at a Branchpoint."20 Since then, the approach to intelligence based on learning, the use of statistical methods, back-propagation, and training (supervised and unsupervised) has come to characterize the current dominant approach.Kevin Scott, in his essay "I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Work & Scale," reminds us of the work of Ray Solomonoff and others linking information and probability theory with the idea of machines that can not only learn, but compress and potentially generalize what they learn, and the emerging realization of this in the systems now being built and those to come. The success of the machine learning approach has benefited from the boon in the availability of data to train the algorithms thanks to the growth in the use of the Internet and other applications and services. In research, the data explosion has been the result of new scientific instruments and observation platforms and data-generating breakthroughs, for example, in astronomy and in genomics. Equally important has been the co-evolution of the software and hardware used, especially chip architectures better suited to the parallel computations involved in data- and compute-intensive neural networks and other machine learning approaches, as Dean discusses.Several authors delve into progress in key subfields of AI.21 In their essay, "Searching for Computer Vision North Stars," Fei-Fei Li and Ranjay Krishna chart developments in machine vision and the creation of standard data sets such as ImageNet that could be used for benchmarking performance. In their respective essays "Human Language Understanding & Reasoning" and "The Curious Case of Commonsense Intelligence," Chris Manning and Yejin Choi discuss different eras and ideas in natural language processing, including the recent emergence of large language models comprising hundreds of billions of parameters and that use transformer architectures and self-supervised learning on vast amounts of data.22 The resulting pretrained models are impressive in their capacity to take natural language prompts for which they have not been trained specifically and generate human-like outputs, not only in natural language, but also images, software code, and more, as Mira Murati discusses and illustrates in "Language & Coding Creativity." Some have started to refer to these large language models as foundational models in that once they are trained, they are adaptable to a wide range of tasks and outputs.23 But despite their unexpected performance, these large language models are still early in their development and have many shortcomings and limitations that are highlighted in this volume and elsewhere, including by some of their developers.24In "The Machines from Our Future," Daniela Rus discusses the progress in robotic systems, including advances in the underlying technologies, as well as in their integrated design that enables them to operate in the physical world. She highlights the limitations in the "industrial" approaches used thus far and suggests new ways of conceptualizing robots that draw on insights from biological systems. In robotics, as in AI more generally, there has always been a tension as to whether to copy or simply draw inspiration from how humans and other biological organisms achieve intelligent behavior. Elsewhere, AI researcher Demis Hassabis and colleagues have explored how neuroscience and AI learn from and inspire each other, although so far more in one than the other, as and have the success of the current approaches to AI, there are still many shortcomings and as well as problems in It is useful to on one such as when AI does not as or or or that can to or when it on or information about the world, or when it has such as of all of which can to a of public shortcomings have captured the attention of the wider public and as well as among there is an on AI and In recent years, there has been a of to principles and approaches to AI, as well as involving and such as the on AI, that to best important has been the of with to and - in the and developing AI in both and as has been well in recent This is an important in its own but also with to the of the resulting AI and, in its intersections with more the other there are limitations and problems associated with the that AI is not capable of if could to more more or more general AI. In their Turing deep learning and Geoffrey took of where deep learning and highlighted its current such as the with In the case of natural language processing, Manning and Choi the challenges in and despite the of large language Elsewhere, and have the notion that large language models do anything learning, or In & of in a and discuss the problems in systems, the as how to reason about other their systems, and well as challenges in both and especially when the include both humans and Elsewhere, and others a useful of the problems in there is a growing among many that we do not have for the of AI systems, especially as they become more capable and the of use although AI and its related techniques are to be powerful tools for research in science, as examples in this volume and recent examples in which AI not only help results but also by design and become what some have AI to science and and to and challenges for the possibility that more powerful AI could to new in science, as well as progress in some of challenges and has long been a key for many at the frontier of AI research to more capable the of each of AI, the of more general problems that to the possibility of more capable AI learning, reasoning, of and and of these and other problems that could to more capable systems the of whether current characterized by deep learning, the of and and more foundational and and reinforcement or whether different approaches are in such as cognitive agent approaches or or based on logic and probability theory, to name a few. whether and what of approaches be the AI is but many the current along with of and learning architectures have to their about the of the current approaches is associated with the of whether artificial general intelligence can be and if how and Artificial general intelligence is in to what is called that AI and for tasks and goals, such as The development of on the other aims for more powerful AI - at as powerful as is generally to problem or and, in some the capacity to and improve as well as set and its own and the of and when will be is a for most that its achievement have and as is often in and such as A through and The to Ex and it is or there is growing among many at the frontier of AI research that we for the possibility of powerful with to and and with humans, its and use, and the possibility that of could and that we these into how we approach the development of of the research and development, and in AI is of the AI and in its what Nigel Shadbolt the of AI. This is given the for useful and applications and the for in sectors of the However, a few have made the development of their the most of these are and each of which has demonstrated results of increasing still a long way from the most discussed impact of AI and automation is on and the future of This is not In in the of the excitement about AI and and concerns about their impact on a on and the was that such technologies were important for growth and and "the that but not Most recent of this including those I have been involved have and that over time, more are than are that it is the and the and the of will the In their essay AI & and John discuss these for work and further, in & the of & to discuss the with to and and as well as the opportunities that are especially in developing In "The Turing The & of Artificial Intelligence," discusses how the use of human benchmarks in the development of AI the of AI that rather than human He that the AI's development will take in this and resulting for will on the for companies, and a that the that more will be than too much from of the and does not far enough into the future and at what AI will be capable The for AI could from of that in the is and labor and ability to are and and until automation has mostly physical and but that AI will be on more cognitive and tasks based on and, if early examples are even tasks are not of the In other are now in the world machines that that learn and that their ability to do these is to a range of problems they can will be with the range to which the human has been This was and Allen Newell in that this time could be different usually two that new labor will in which will by other humans for their own even when machines may be capable of these as well as or even better than The other is that AI will create so much and all without the for human and the of will be to for when that will the that once the first time since his creation will be with his his to use his from how to the which science and interest will have for to live and and However, most researchers that we are not to a future in which the of will and that until then, there are other and that be in the labor now and in the such as and other and how humans work increasingly capable that and John and discuss in this are not the only of the by AI. Russell a of the potentially from artificial general intelligence, once a of or ten But even we to general-purpose AI, the opportunities for companies and, for the and growth as well as from AI and its related technologies are more than to pursuit and by companies and in the development, and use of AI. At the many the is it is generally that is a in AI, as by its growth in AI research, and as highlighted in several will have for companies and given the of such technologies as discussed by and others the may in the way of approaches to AI and (such as whether they are companies or as and have have the to to in AI. The role of AI in intelligence, systems, autonomous even and other of increasingly In &

Predictive modeling in reproductive medicine: Where will the future of artificial intelligence research take us?

Background and Aim: Accurate tracheal tube cuff pressure measurement is crucial to prevent complications in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. However, manual inflation methods, which are still commonly used in clinical practice, may lead to inaccurate cuff pressure measurements, compromising patient safety. Therefore, this study aims to compare the accuracy of manual and manometric methods for tracheal tube cuff pressure measurement in patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery in the prone position and to assess the safety implications of manual inflation methods. Methods and Materials/Patients: This prospective analytical descriptive study was conducted on 60 patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery in the prone position. Tracheal tube cuff pressure was initially recorded in the supine position using both the manual method and the manometric method. Following the prone positioning of the patient, the cuff pressure was immediately recorded and adjusted by manometry. Subsequent recordings were made every 15 minutes until the conclusion of the surgery, using only the manometric method. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean and percentage, as well as relevant statistical tests, such as repeated measurement and analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS software, version 16. Results: Significant differences were observed in tracheal tube cuff pressure measurements between the two instrumental (manometer) and manual methods in patients in the prone position (P<0.001). Tracheal tube cuff pressure, measured by both instrumental (manometer) and manual methods, exhibited significant differences at various time points (zero, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 90 minutes) concerning body mass index in prone position patients (P<0.05). Additionally, a significant difference was observed in tracheal tube cuff pressure based on the duration of surgery (P<0.05), with the highest cuff pressure reported in patients with a surgical duration of 2 hours or more in the prone position. Conclusion: The study results showed that tracheal tube cuff pressure measured by the instrumental method (manometer) was consistently lower than that measured by the manual method in patients placed in the prone position. Therefore, the manual approach may cause safety issues for patients.

BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is a promising tool for cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) measurement that has been technically validated but not clinically evaluated on a large dataset. We observed and validated AI and manual methods for CTR measurement using a large dataset and investigated the clinical utility of the AI method.MethodsFive thousand normal chest x-rays and 2,517 images with cardiomegaly and CTR values, were analyzed using manual, AI-assisted, and AI-only methods. AI-only methods obtained CTR values from a VGG-16 U-Net model. An in-house software was used to aid the manual and AI-assisted measurements and to record operating time. Intra and inter-observer experiments were performed on manual and AI-assisted methods and the averages were used in a method variation study. AI outcomes were graded in the AI-assisted method as excellent (accepted by both users independently), good (required adjustment), and poor (failed outcome). Bland–Altman plot with coefficient of variation (CV), and coefficient of determination (R-squared) were used to evaluate agreement and correlation between measurements. Finally, the performance of a cardiomegaly classification test was evaluated using a CTR cutoff at the standard (0.5), optimum, and maximum sensitivity.ResultsManual CTR measurements on cardiomegaly data were comparable to previous radiologist reports (CV of 2.13% vs 2.04%). The observer and method variations from the AI-only method were about three times higher than from the manual method (CV of 5.78% vs 2.13%). AI assistance resulted in 40% excellent, 56% good, and 4% poor grading. AI assistance significantly improved agreement on inter-observer measurement compared to manual methods (CV; bias: 1.72%; − 0.61% vs 2.13%; − 1.62%) and was faster to perform (2.2 ± 2.4 secs vs 10.6 ± 1.5 secs). The R-squared and classification-test were not reliable indicators to verify that the AI-only method could replace manual operation.ConclusionsAI alone is not yet suitable to replace manual operations due to its high variation, but it is useful to assist the radiologist because it can reduce observer variation and operation time. Agreement of measurement should be used to compare AI and manual methods, rather than R-square or classification performance tests.

Study question Can Mojo AISA, an Artificial Intelligence microscopy, release accurate and reliable semen analysis results for the daily routine? Summary answer Mojo AISA guarantee precise semen analysis results improving the objectiveness and minimizing human error. Moreover, embryologists can safe 50% of time per procedure. What is known already The current method to perform a semen analysis is through the manual microscope and/or computer-assisted semen analysis. The most automated sperm analyzers rely on a classic image processing algorithms which can distinguish spermatozoa by size and brightness. However, it has been demonstrated that these algorithms are not able to discriminate well spermatozoa heads from other cells that have similar size, leading to improper results. To overcome these limits, a new Artificial Intelligence Semen Analysis system, Mojo AISA, has been developed to carry out concentration and motility. Mojo AISA is based on a neural network classification, a series of embedded algorithms. Study design, size, duration In the last nine months, semen parameters of 64 men were assessed simultaneously by manual microscopy method and by Mojo AISA. The manual semen analysis was performed by two certified andrologists following WHO 5th Edition guidelines. Concentration and motility parameters were assessed and compared between the two methods. Regarding the motility, we compare the following 3 categories: Progressive (PR), Non-Progressive (NP) and combined motility (PR+NP). Samples with normal and abnormal semen parameters were included. Participants/materials, setting, methods Semen samples were allowed to liquefy for at least 15 min at 37°C. For the manual method, 10 μL of raw sample was loaded onto a Makler chamber and for Mojo AISA, two 10 μl drops of raw samples were smeared side on the side on a glass slide. Mojo AISA delivered semen analysis results in 4 minutes per sample. The statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS 14.0 statistical software. Main results and the role of chance A semen analysis of 64 semen samples from 62 men (40±10 years old) was performed simultaneously with manual method and Mojo AISA, following WHO 5th Edition (2010) guidelines. The average and the standard deviation of semen concentration with manual method and with Mojo AISA was 52.7±46 and 50.6± 43.2 x 106/ml, respectively (P=NS). No significant difference was found when the combined motility (PR+NP) was evaluated. Indeed, the average and standard deviation was 53.5±20% with manual method and 49.1± 22.1% with Mojo AISA (P=NS). Similar results were seen with progressive motility showing an average and standard deviation of 38.5±19% and 34.1±20%, respectively (P=NS). Ultimately, the assessment of non-progressive motility showed an average and standard deviation of 12.3±12% with manual method and 13.9± 9% with Mojo AISA, showing no statistic difference. Limitations, reasons for caution The protocol of the slide’s preparation should be properly followed since the formation of air bubbles can impact on the correct semen evaluation of Mojo, misleading sperm results. Mojo AISA presents difficulty to assess sample with extremely low concentration and further evaluation are needed for this type of samples. Wider implications of the findings These findings show that the semen analysis results of mojo AISA and those of manual method are comparable. Mojo AISA can guarantee semen analysis results more precise, with lower inter-laboratory variability and in a 50% shorter time. Trial registration number N/A

Aim: To compare the eyelid angle measured by using a manual method (Using protractor) and digital image analysis method (Using ImageJ software) at different distances of eye gaze. Methodology: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the preclinical lab at Manipal College of Health Professions. Subjects with no eyelid abnormalities were included in the study and they were asked to fixate at different distances a) at 3 metre (Distance gaze) b) at 70 cm (Intermediategaze) and c) at 40 cm(Near gaze). Using a protractor, the eyelid angle measurements were repeated at various distances which comprised the manual measurement. In the image analysis method, images were captured during distance, intermediate and near gaze using smartphone placed on theside of the face. These images were then analysed using ImageJ software for determining eyelid angle using image analysis method. Palpebral fissure height, Palpebral fissure width, Interpupillary distance, Intercanthal width, Binocular width, Height of open upper lid were some additional anthropometry measurements that were done using meter scale and PD ruler. Results: The mean age of the participants was 20±0.5 years. Anthropometry measurements of the eyelid and Palpebral fissure were done using meter scaleand PD ruler. The mean and standard deviation of the measured parametersare as follows Interpupillary distance: 60.95±2.37 mm, Endo Inter canthal distance: 32.20±2.39 mm, Exo Inter cantal distance: 95.50±3.80 mm, Palpebralfissure height_OD: 12.11±1.32 mm, Palpebral fissure height_OS:12.16±1.46mm, PFW_OD: 32.00±1.10 mm, PFW_OS: 32.11±1.24 mm, Height of upper eyelids_OD: 10.26±1.66 mm and Height of upper eyelids_OS:10.42±1.83 mm. In the right eye, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between manual protractor method and digital image analysismethod at distance but there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.05)between manual protractor method and digital image analysis method atIntermediate and near. In left eye, there was statistically significant difference(p<0.05) between manual protractor method and digital image analysis method at all three distances. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in eyelid angle measured using manual protractor method and digital image analysis method. The measurement of eyelid angle serves as a critical reference point during cosmetic and reconstructive surgical interventions of the eyelid and accurate measurements are essential for preoperative assessment, surgical planning and postoperative evaluation. Hence more studies on the validation of the anthropometry measurements and eyelid angle using digital image analysis areessential to use digital image analysis in routine eye care practice.

To evaluate the validity, reliability and reproducibility of manual, fully automated and semi-automated artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for measuring tooth widths, calculating Bolton ratios and performing space analysis. A total of 102 plaster models and 102 corresponding occlusal photographs were analysed using three methods: manual, fully automated AI and semi-automated AI. For each case, mesiodistal tooth widths were measured, and the anterior and overall Bolton ratios were calculated, along with the required and available space and the space discrepancy in both arches. Validity was assessed using repeated measures ANOVA, reliability using Pearson's correlation coefficients and reproducibility using intraclass correlation coefficients. Statistically significant differences were observed in mean tooth widths among the three methods (p < 0.05), with the semi-automated AI method producing the highest values. No significant differences were found in Bolton ratios (p > 0.05). Significant differences were noted between T1 and T2 measurements for all methods (p < 0.05). The fully automated AI method showed the highest intra-examiner reliability in tooth width, Bolton ratios and space analysis (r = 0.873-0.996), followed by the manual (r = 0.449-0.961) and semi-automated methods (r = 0.248-0.739). All methods showed excellent reproducibility in tooth width (ICC: 0.966-0.983). However, the manual method had the highest reproducibility in Bolton ratios (ICC: ABR = 0.964; OBR = 0.960), while AI-based methods showed lower reliability, especially in derived measurements such as Bolton ratios and upper arch discrepancies. The semi-automated AI method produced higher tooth width and space analysis values than the manual method, while the fully automated method exhibited greater variability. Although Bolton ratios were statistically similar, variability in individual measurements was more pronounced with AI methods. While all methods demonstrated high reproducibility for tooth width measurements, reduced consistency was observed for AI-based methods in derived outcomes such as Bolton ratios and space discrepancies.

In electrified railways, the reliability and efficiency of the power supply system are directly dependent on the condition of the contact suspension. Determining the elasticity of the contact suspension is one of the most critical issues, as it impacts the following: stable operation of the current collector – if the contact suspension lacks sufficient elasticity, the stable connection with the pantograph may be disrupted, leading to interruptions in the transmission of electrical energy; reliability and long service life – excessive rigidity or flexibility of the contact suspension can result in rapid wear and tear, increasing maintenance costs; adaptation to high-speed requirements – for trains operating at high speeds, the optimal elasticity of the contact suspension is crucial; otherwise, strong vibrations and contact interruptions may occur; energy efficiency – optimal elasticity helps distribute the load evenly, reduces energy losses, and improves overall efficiency. Therefore, determining and optimizing the elasticity of the contact suspension is of great importance for enhancing the efficiency and safety of railway transport. The digitization of contact suspension elasticity is a modern necessity. Digitization can be implemented through the following methods: sensors and IT devices – smart sensors capable of measuring pressure, vibrations, and bending angles can be installed to monitor the elasticity of the contact suspension in real time; laser and video analysis – high-resolution cameras and laser scanning technologies enable continuous monitoring of the deformation and condition of the contact suspension; artificial intelligence and machine learning – based on collected data, it is possible to create performance forecasts for the contact suspension and predict wear and tear processes in advance; database systems – storing the collected data on central servers and analyzing it in real time allows for the optimization of maintenance schedules. As a result of digitization, maintenance costs are reduced, potential failures are prevented, and the efficiency of electrified railways is significantly improved

Advances in machine vision technology are rapidly enabling new and innovative uses within the field of biodiversity. Computers are now able to use images to identify tens of thousands of species across a wide range of taxonomic groups in real time, notably demonstrated by iNaturalist.org, which suggests species IDs to users (https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/computer_vision_demo) as they create observation records. Soon it will be commonplace to detect species in video feeds or use the camera in a mobile device to search for species-related content on the Internet. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has an important role to play in advancing and improving this technology, whether in terms of data, collaboration across teams, or citation practice. But in the short term, the most important role may relate to initiating a cultural shift in accepted practices for the use of GBIF-mediated data for training of artificial intelligence (AI). “Training datasets” play a critical role in achieving species recognition capability in any machine vision system. These datasets compile representative images containing the explicit, verifiable identifications of the species they include. High-powered computers run algorithms on these training datasets, analysing the imagery and building complex models that characterize defining features for each species or taxonomic group. Researchers can, in turn, apply the resulting models to new images, determining what species or group they likely contain. Current research in machine vision is exploring (a) the use of location and date information to further improve model results, (b) identification methods beyond species-level into attribute, character, trait, or part-level ID, with an eye toward human interpretability, and (c) expertise modeling for improved determination of “research grade” images and metadata. The GBIF community has amassed one of the largest datasets of labelled species images available on the internet: more than 33 million species occurrence records in GBIF.org have one or more images (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/gallery). Machine vision models, when integrated into the data collection tools in use across the GBIF network, can improve the user experience. For example, in citizen science applications like iNaturalist, automated species suggestion helps even novice users contribute occurrence records to GBIF. Perhaps most importantly, GBIF has implemented uniform (and open) data licensing, established guidelines on citation and provided consistent methods for tracking data use through the Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) citation chain. GBIF would like to build on the lessons learned in these activities while striving to assist with this technology research and increase its power and availability. We envisage an approach as follows: To assist in developing and refining machine vision models, GBIF plans to provide training datasets, taking effort to ensure license and citation practice are respected. The training datasets will be issued with a DOI, and the contributing datasets will be linked through the DOI citation graph. To assist application developers, Google and Visipedia plan to build and publish openly-licensed models and tutorials for how to adapt them for localized use. Together we will strive to ensure that data is being used responsibly and transparently, to close the gap between machine vision scientists, application developers, and users and to share taxonomic trees capturing the taxon rank to which machine vision models can identify with confidence based on an image’s visual characteristics. To assist in developing and refining machine vision models, GBIF plans to provide training datasets, taking effort to ensure license and citation practice are respected. The training datasets will be issued with a DOI, and the contributing datasets will be linked through the DOI citation graph. To assist application developers, Google and Visipedia plan to build and publish openly-licensed models and tutorials for how to adapt them for localized use. Together we will strive to ensure that data is being used responsibly and transparently, to close the gap between machine vision scientists, application developers, and users and to share taxonomic trees capturing the taxon rank to which machine vision models can identify with confidence based on an image’s visual characteristics.

To establish reference ranges of fetal intracranial markers during the first trimester and develop the first novel artificial intelligence (AI) model to measure key markers automatically. This retrospective study used two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound images from 4233 singleton normal fetuses scanned at 11+0-13+6 weeks of gestation at the Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2018 to July 2022. We analyzed 10 key markers in three important planes of the fetal head. Based on these, reference ranges of 10 fetal intracranial markers were established and an AI model was developed for automated marker measurement. AI and manual measurements were compared to evaluate differences, correlations, consistency, and time consumption based on mean error, Pearson correlation analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and average measurement time. The results of AI and manual methods had strong consistency and correlation (all ICC values >0.75, all r values >0.75, and all P values <0.001). The average absolute error of both only ranged from 0.124 to 0.178 mm. AI achieved a 100% detection rate for abnormal cases. Additionally, the average measurement time of AI was only 0.49 s, which was more than 65 times faster than the manual measurement method. The present study first established the normal standard reference ranges of fetal intracranial markers based on a large Chinese population data set. Furthermore, the proposed AI model demonstrated its capability to measure multiple fetal intracranial markers automatically, serving as a highly effective tool to streamline sonographer tasks and mitigate manual measurement errors, which can be generalized to first-trimester scanning.

Assessing perspectives on artificial intelligence applications to gastroenterology

ObjectivesThis time-motion study explored the amount of time clinicians spent on wound assessments in a real-world environment using wound assessment digital application utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. manual methods. The study also aimed at comparing the proportion of captured quality wound images on the first attempt by the assessment method.MethodsClinicians practicing at Valley Wound Center who agreed to join the study were asked to record the time needed to complete wound assessment activities for patients with active wounds referred for a routine evaluation on the follow-up days at the clinic. Assessment activities included: labelling wounds, capturing images, measuring wounds, calculating surface areas, and transferring data into the patient’s record.ResultsA total of 91 patients with 115 wounds were assessed. The average time to capture and access wound image with the AI digital tool was significantly faster than a standard digital camera with an average of 62 seconds (P<0.001). The digital application was significantly faster by 77% at accurately measuring and calculating the wound surface area with an average of 45.05 seconds (P<0.001). Overall, the average time to complete a wound assessment using Swift was significantly faster by 79%. Using the AI application, the staff completed all steps in about half of the time (54%) normally spent on manual wound evaluation activities. Moreover, acquiring acceptable wound image was significantly more likely to be achieved the first time using the digital tool than the manual methods (92.2% vs. 75.7%, P<0.004).ConclusionsUsing the digital assessment tool saved significant time for clinicians in assessing wounds. It also successfully captured quality wound images at the first attempt.

Automation, including machine learning technologies, are becoming increasingly crucial in agriculture to increase productivity. Machine vision is one of the most popular parts of machine learning and has been widely used where advanced automation and control have been required. The trend has shifted from classical image processing and machine learning techniques to modern artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) methods. Based on large training datasets and pre-trained models, DL-based methods have proven to be more accurate than previous traditional techniques. Machine vision has wide applications in agriculture, including the detection of weeds and pests in crops. Variation in lighting conditions, failures to transfer learning, and object occlusion constitute key challenges in this domain. Recently, DL has gained much attention due to its advantages in object detection, classification, and feature extraction. DL algorithms can automatically extract information from large amounts of data used to model complex problems and is, therefore, suitable for detecting and classifying weeds and crops. We present a systematic review of AI-based systems to detect weeds, emphasizing recent trends in DL. Various DL methods are discussed to clarify their overall potential, usefulness, and performance. This study indicates that several limitations obstruct the widespread adoption of AI/DL in commercial applications. Recommendations for overcoming these challenges are summarized.

Artificial intelligence (AI) enhances anesthesiology by introducing adaptive systems that improve clinical precision, safety, and responsiveness. This review examines the integration of AI in anesthetic practice, with a focus on closed-loop systems that exemplify autonomous control. These platforms integrate continuous physiologic inputs, such as BIS, EEG, heart rate, and blood pressure, to titrate anesthetic agents in real time, providing more consistent and responsive management than manual methods. Predictive algorithms reduce intraoperative hypotension by up to 40%, and systems such as McSleepy demonstrate greater accuracy in maintaining anesthetic depth and shortening recovery times. In critical care, AI supports sedation management, reduces clinician cognitive load, and standardizes care delivery during high-acuity procedures. The review also addresses the ethical, legal, and logistical challenges to widespread adoption of AI. Key concerns include algorithmic bias, explainability, and accountability for machine-generated decisions and disparities in access due to infrastructure demands. Regulatory frameworks, such as HIPAA and GDPR, are discussed in the context of securing patient data and ensuring its ethical deployment. Additionally, AI may play a transformative role in global health through remote anesthesia delivery and telemonitoring, helping address anesthesiologist shortages in resource-limited settings. Ultimately, AI-guided closed-loop systems do not replace clinicians; instead, they extend their capacity to deliver safe, responsive, and personalized anesthesia. These technologies signal a shift toward robotic anesthesia, where machine autonomy complements human oversight. Continued interdisciplinary development and rigorous clinical validation will determine how AI integrates into both operating rooms and intensive care units.

A recently developed method enables automated measurement of the hallux valgus angle (HVA) and the first intermetatarsal angle (IMA) from weight-bearing foot radiographs. This approach employs bone segmentation to identify anatomical landmarks and provides standardized angle measurements based on established guidelines. While effective for HVA and IMA, preoperative radiograph analysis remains complex and requires additional measurements, such as the hallux interphalangeal angle (IPA), which has received limited research attention. To expand the previous method, which measured HVA and IMA, by incorporating the automatic measurement of IPA, evaluating its accuracy and clinical relevance. A preexisting database of manually labeled foot radiographs was used to train a U-Net neural network for segmenting bones and identifying landmarks necessary for IPA measurement. Of the 265 radiographs in the dataset, 161 were selected for training and 20 for validation. The U-Net neural network achieves a high mean Sørensen-Dice index (> 0.97). The remaining 84 radiographs were used to assess the reliability of automated IPA measurements against those taken manually by two orthopedic surgeons (OA and OB) using computer-based tools. Each measurement was repeated to assess intraobserver (OA1 and OA2) and interobserver (OA2 and OB) reliability. Agreement between automated and manual methods was evaluated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis identified systematic differences. Standard error of measurement (SEM) and Pearson correlation coefficients quantified precision and linearity, and measurement times were recorded to evaluate efficiency. The artificial intelligence (AI)-based system demonstrated excellent reliability, with ICC3.1 values of 0.92 (AI vs OA2) and 0.88 (AI vs OB), both statistically significant (P < 0.001). For manual measurements, ICC values were 0.95 (OA2 vs OA1) and 0.95 (OA2 vs OB), supporting both intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Bland-Altman analysis revealed minimal biases of: (1) 1.61° (AI vs OA2); and (2) 2.54° (AI vs OB), with clinically acceptable limits of agreement. The AI system also showed high precision, as evidenced by low SEM values: (1) 1.22° (OA2 vs OB); (2) 1.77° (AI vs OA2); and (3) 2.09° (AI vs OB). Furthermore, Pearson correlation coefficients confirmed strong linear relationships between automated and manual measurements, with r = 0.85 (AI vs OA2) and r = 0.90 (AI vs OB). The AI method significantly improved efficiency, completing all 84 measurements 8 times faster than manual methods, reducing the time required from an average 36 minutes to just 4.5 minutes. The proposed AI-assisted IPA measurement method shows strong clinical potential, effectively corresponding with manual measurements. Integrating IPA with HVA and IMA assessments provides a comprehensive tool for automated forefoot deformity analysis, supporting hallux valgus severity classification and preoperative planning, while offering substantial time savings in high-volume clinical settings.