| Literature DB >> 34502653 |
Filipe Ferreira1, Ivan Miguel Pires2, Vasco Ponciano1,3, Mónica Costa1, María Vanessa Villasana4, Nuno M Garcia2, Eftim Zdravevski5, Petre Lameski5, Ivan Chorbev5, Martin Mihajlov6, Vladimir Trajkovik5.
Abstract
Healthcare treatments might benefit from advances in artificial intelligence and technological equipment such as smartphones and smartwatches. The presence of cameras in these devices with increasingly robust and precise pattern recognition techniques can facilitate the estimation of the wound area and other telemedicine measurements. Currently, telemedicine is vital to the maintenance of the quality of the treatments remotely. This study proposes a method for measuring the wound area with mobile devices. The proposed approach relies on a multi-step process consisting of image capture, conversion to grayscale, blurring, application of a threshold with segmentation, identification of the wound part, dilation and erosion of the detected wound section, identification of accurate data related to the image, and measurement of the wound area. The proposed method was implemented with the OpenCV framework. Thus, it is a solution for healthcare systems by which to investigate and treat people with skin-related diseases. The proof-of-concept was performed with a static dataset of camera images on a desktop computer. After we validated the approach's feasibility, we implemented the method in a mobile application that allows for communication between patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals.Entities:
Keywords: image processing techniques; mobile application; segmentation; threshold; wound area measurement
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34502653 PMCID: PMC8433956 DOI: 10.3390/s21175762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Example images of wounds. (a)—wound image in a human arm [44]; (b)—wound image in a human trunk; (c)— wound image in a human trunk; (d)—wound image in a human foot; (e)— wound image in a human trunk [45]; (f)— wound image in a human trunk [45]; (g)—wound image in a human arm [45]; (h)—wound image in a human arm [45]; (i)—wound image in a human tail; (j)—wound image in a human leg [44].
Figure 2Data processing steps.
Figure 3Wound image processing steps. (a)—wound image after conversion to grayscale; (b)—wound image after blurring; (c)—wound image after application of threshold and segmentation techniques; (d)—wound image after contour detection; Figure (e)—wound image after dilation of the white region; (f)—wound image after erosion of the white region; Figure (g)—wound image contours after canny detection; (h)—wound image contours after dilation; (i)—final wound image.
Image metadata.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Physical Width (DPI) | 300 |
| Physical Height (DPI) | 300 |
| Width (px) | 1024 |
| Height (px) | 706 |
| Total area (px) | 749,772 |
Final measured values.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Width (px) | 1024 |
| Height (px) | 706 |
| Width (cm2) | 8.99 |
| Height (cm2) | 5.98 |
| Total area (px) | 749,772 |
| Total area (cm2) | 53.7602 |
| Wound area (px) | 54,746.5 |
| Wound area (cm2) | 3.9254 |
Wound area measured by a desktop application.
| Figure | Wound Area Measured by Desktop Application (cm2) |
|---|---|
| 1a | 3.92 |
| 1b | 8.56 |
| 1c | 7.52 |
| 1d | 4.98 |
| 1e | 3.50 |
| 1f | 7.07 |
| 1g | 6.81 |
| 1h | 1.74 |
| 1i | 4.58 |
| 1j | 2.27 |
Figure 4Sign In.
Figure 5Sign Up. (a) shows the registration menu that allows for the registration of a patient in (b), the registration of a doctor in (c), and the registration of a caregiver in (d).
Figure 6Patient’s Menu.
Figure 7Caregiver’s Menu.
Figure 8Doctor’s actions. (a) shows the doctor’s menu. (b) shows the details of a selected image in the list. (c) shows the results of the wound analysis.
Wound area measured by the mobile application.
| Figure | Wound Area Measured by a Mobile Application (cm2) |
|---|---|
| 1a | 2.70 |
| 1b | 6.50 |
| 1c | 6.69 |
| 1d | 2.52 |
| 1e | 2.06 |
| 1f | 5.95 |
| 1g | 2.91 |
| 1h | 0.83 |
| 1i | 3.20 |
| 1j | 1.16 |
Comparison of the wound area measured by the different platforms.
| Figure | Wound Area Measured by a Desktop Application (cm2) | Wound Area Measured by a Mobile Application (cm2) | Difference (cm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a | 3.92 | 2.70 | −1.22 (−31.1%) |
| 1b | 8.56 | 6.50 | −2.06 (−24.0%) |
| 1c | 7.52 | 6.69 | −0.83 (−11.0%) |
| 1d | 4.98 | 2.52 | −2.46 (−49.4%) |
| 1e | 3.50 | 2.06 | −1.44 (−41.1%) |
| 1f | 7.07 | 5.95 | −1.12 (−15.8%) |
| 1g | 6.81 | 2.91 | −3.90 (−57.3%) |
| 1h | 1.74 | 0.83 | −0.91 (−52.3%) |
| 1i | 4.58 | 3.20 | −1.38 (−30.1%) |
| 1j | 2.27 | 1.16 | −1.11 (−48.9%) |
Adjusted wound area measured by a mobile application and the final errors reported.
| Figure | Adjusted Wound Area Measured by a Mobile Application (cm2) | Difference (cm2) |
|---|---|---|
| 1a | 3.64 | −0.28 (−7.1%) |
| 1b | 8.76 | +0.20 (+2.3%) |
| 1c | 9.01 | +1.49 (+19.8%) |
| 1d | 3.39 | −1.59 (−31.9%) |
| 1e | 3.42 | −0.08 (−2.3%) |
| 1f | 8.01 | +0.94 (+13.3%) |
| 1g | 3.92 | −2.98 (−43.8%) |
| 1h | 1.12 | −0.62 (−35.6%) |
| 1i | 4.31 | −0.27 (−5.9%) |
| 1j | 1.56 | −0.71 (−31.3%) |