Pain assessment is a complex task largely dependent on the patient’s self-report. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for automating and objectifying pain assessment through the identification of pain-related facial expressions. However, the capabilities and potential of AI in clinical settings are still largely unknown to many medical professionals. In this literature review, we present a conceptual understanding of the application of AI to detect pain through facial expressions. We provide an overview of the current state of the art as well as the technical foundations of AI/ML techniques used in pain detection. We highlight the ethical challenges and the limitations associated with the use of AI in pain detection, such as the scarcity of databases, confounding factors, and medical conditions that affect the shape and mobility of the face. The review also highlights the potential impact of AI on pain assessment in clinical practice and lays the groundwork for further study in this area.

No abstract

Background: The use of bone morphogenic protein and mesenchymal stem cells has shown promise in promoting bone regeneration in calvarial defects. However, a systematic review of the available literature is needed to evaluate the efficacy of this approach. Methods: We comprehensively searched electronic databases using MeSH terms related to skull defects, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, and bone morphogenic proteins. Eligible studies included animal studies that used BMP therapy and mesenchymal stem cells to promote bone regeneration in calvarial defects. Reviews, conference articles, book chapters, and non-English language studies were excluded. Two independent investigators conducted the search and data extraction. Results: Twenty-three studies published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria after a full-text review of the forty-five records found in the search. Eight of the 23 studies used mice as models, while 15 used rats. The most common mesenchymal stem cell was bone marrow-derived, followed by adipose-derived. BMP-2 was the most popular. Stem cells were embedded in Scaffold (13), Transduction (7), and Transfection (3), and they were delivered BMP to cells. Each treatment used 2 × 104–1 × 107 mesenchymal stem cells, averaging 2.26 × 106. Most BMP-transduced MSC studies used lentivirus. Conclusions: This systematic review examined BMP and MSC synergy in biomaterial scaffolds or alone. BMP therapy and mesenchymal stem cells in calvarial defects, alone, or with a scaffold regenerated bone. This method treats skull defects in clinical trials. The best scaffold material, therapeutic dosage, administration method, and long-term side effects need further study.