{"title":"An ingenious deep learning approach for pressure injury depth evaluation with limited data","authors":"Kento Ikuta , Kohei Fukuoka , Yuka Kimura , Makoto Nakagaki , Makoto Ohga , Yoshiko Suyama , Maki Morita , Ryunosuke Umeda , Mamoru Konishi , Hiroyuki Nishikawa , Shunjiro Yagi","doi":"10.1016/j.jtv.2024.05.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The development of models using deep learning (DL) to assess pressure injuries from wound images has recently gained attention. Creating enough supervised data is important for improving performance but is time-consuming. Therefore, the development of models that can achieve high performance with limited supervised data is desirable.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>This retrospective observational study utilized DL and included patients who received medical examinations for sacral pressure injuries between February 2017 and December 2021. Images were labeled according to the DESIGN-R® classification. Three artificial intelligence (AI) models for assessing pressure injury depth were created with a convolutional neural network (Categorical, Binary, and Combined classification models) and performance was compared among the models.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A set of 414 pressure injury images in five depth stages (d0 to D4) were analyzed. The Combined classification model showed superior performance (F1-score, 0.868). The Categorical classification model frequently misclassified d1 and d2 as d0 (d0 Precision, 0.503), but showed high performance for D3 and D4 (F1-score, 0.986 and 0.966, respectively). The Binary classification model showed high performance in differentiating between d0 and d1–D4 (F1-score, 0.895); however, performance decreased with increasing number of evaluation steps.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The Combined classification model displayed superior performance without increasing the supervised data, which can be attributed to use of the high-performance Binary classification model for initial d0 evaluation and subsequent use of the Categorical classification model with fewer evaluation steps. Understanding the unique characteristics of classification methods and deploying them appropriately can enhance AI model performance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of tissue viability","volume":"33 3","pages":"Pages 387-392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of tissue viability","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965206X24000718","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The development of models using deep learning (DL) to assess pressure injuries from wound images has recently gained attention. Creating enough supervised data is important for improving performance but is time-consuming. Therefore, the development of models that can achieve high performance with limited supervised data is desirable.
Materials and methods
This retrospective observational study utilized DL and included patients who received medical examinations for sacral pressure injuries between February 2017 and December 2021. Images were labeled according to the DESIGN-R® classification. Three artificial intelligence (AI) models for assessing pressure injury depth were created with a convolutional neural network (Categorical, Binary, and Combined classification models) and performance was compared among the models.
Results
A set of 414 pressure injury images in five depth stages (d0 to D4) were analyzed. The Combined classification model showed superior performance (F1-score, 0.868). The Categorical classification model frequently misclassified d1 and d2 as d0 (d0 Precision, 0.503), but showed high performance for D3 and D4 (F1-score, 0.986 and 0.966, respectively). The Binary classification model showed high performance in differentiating between d0 and d1–D4 (F1-score, 0.895); however, performance decreased with increasing number of evaluation steps.
Conclusion
The Combined classification model displayed superior performance without increasing the supervised data, which can be attributed to use of the high-performance Binary classification model for initial d0 evaluation and subsequent use of the Categorical classification model with fewer evaluation steps. Understanding the unique characteristics of classification methods and deploying them appropriately can enhance AI model performance.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Tissue Viability is the official publication of the Tissue Viability Society and is a quarterly journal concerned with all aspects of the occurrence and treatment of wounds, ulcers and pressure sores including patient care, pain, nutrition, wound healing, research, prevention, mobility, social problems and management.
The Journal particularly encourages papers covering skin and skin wounds but will consider articles that discuss injury in any tissue. Articles that stress the multi-professional nature of tissue viability are especially welcome. We seek to encourage new authors as well as well-established contributors to the field - one aim of the journal is to enable all participants in tissue viability to share information with colleagues.