| Literature DB >> 35505175 |
Simon Lyra1, Jöran Rixen2, Konrad Heimann3, Srinivasa Karthik4, Jayaraj Joseph4, Kumutha Jayaraman5, Thorsten Orlikowsky3, Mohanasankar Sivaprakasam4, Steffen Leonhardt2, Christoph Hoog Antink2,6.
Abstract
The continuous monitoring of vital signs is a crucial aspect of medical care in neonatal intensive care units. Since cable-based sensors pose a potential risk for the immature skin of preterm infants, unobtrusive monitoring techniques using camera systems are increasingly investigated. The combination of deep learning-based algorithms and camera modalities such as RGB and infrared thermography can improve the development of cable-free methods for the extraction of vital parameters. In this study, a real-time approach for local extraction of temperatures on the body surface of neonates using a multi-modal clinical dataset was implemented. Therefore, a trained deep learning-based keypoint detector was used for body landmark prediction in RGB. Image registration was conducted to transfer the RGB points to the corresponding thermographic recordings. These landmarks were used to extract the body surface temperature in various regions to determine the central-peripheral temperature difference. A validation of the keypoint detector showed a mean average precision of 0.82. The registration resulted in mean absolute errors of 16.4 px (8.2 mm) for x and 22.4 px (11.2 mm) for y. The evaluation of the temperature extraction revealed a mean absolute error of 0.55 [Formula: see text]C. A final performance of 31 fps was observed on the NVIDIA Jetson Xavier NX module, which proves real-time capability on an embedded GPU system. As a result, the approach can perform real-time temperature extraction on a low-cost GPU module.Entities:
Keywords: Camera fusion; Deep learning; Infrared thermography; Neonatal intensive care unit
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35505175 PMCID: PMC9079037 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-022-02561-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput ISSN: 0140-0118 Impact factor: 3.079
Fig. 1a Patient view of the camera setup modified from [34]. b Recording setup at a radiant warmer in the NICU
Dataset sampling for training and evaluation
| Usage | Modality | Patients | Images | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DL dataset | RGB | 18 | 150 | 2,700 |
| cpTD dataset | RGB | 18 | 20 | 360 |
| IRT | 18 | 20 | 360 |
Fig. 2Overview of the dataset usage for the DL-based approach
Fig. 3Annotation example with 18 keypoints and connections
Fig. 4Overview of the image registration algorithm. The final overlay image was resized for illustration
Fig. 5Overview of the algorithm for temperature measurement
Fig. 6Application of the proposed algorithm to an image pair. The RGB image and the ROIs in the IRT frame were rescaled for illustration purposes only
Results of a leave-one-out cross validation
| Fold (patient) | AP | AR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 86.6 | 98.0 | 90.5 |
| 2 | 76.2 | 98.0 | 80.7 |
| 3 | 88.3 | 99.0 | 90.4 |
| 4 | 75.5 | 97.9 | 77.0 |
| 5 | 69.1 | 84.7 | 72.9 |
| 6 | 88.5 | 100.0 | 91.3 |
| 7 | 93.5 | 98.0 | 94.4 |
| 8 | 57.4 | 61.7 | 57.8 |
| 9 | 98.7 | 100.0 | 99.0 |
| 10 | 76.2 | 84.4 | 79.3 |
| 11 | 36.0 | 18.9 | 38.6 |
| 12 | 96.5 | 100.0 | 97.9 |
| 13 | 99.4 | 100.0 | 99.6 |
| 14 | 93.0 | 100.0 | 94.7 |
| 15 | 87.9 | 99.0 | 91.8 |
| 16 | 71.7 | 71.2 | 74.3 |
| 17 | 98.9 | 100.0 | 99.2 |
| 18 | 79.5 | 95.8 | 84.7 |
| Mean | 81.8 | 89.3 | 84.1 |
| SD | 16.4 | 20.7 | 16.0 |
| CMU-Pose [ | 69.3 | 67.5 | − |
| OpenPose [ | 70.7 | 71.3 | − |
| PRTR [ | 73.3 | 79.9 | 80.2 |
Mean performance on different GPU platforms
| Platform | Inference (fps) | Total (fps) |
|---|---|---|
| Jetson Xavier NX | 98 | 31 |
| Jetson AGX Xavier | 165 | 47 |
| Quadro RTX 5000 | 560 | 98 |
Results of the point transformation in pixels and millimeters
| Fold | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.7 | 1.6 | 20.5 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 10.3 | 1.3 |
| 2 | 11.2 | 2.4 | 43.3 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 21.7 | 2.4 |
| 3 | 14.8 | 7.3 | 9.7 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 4.9 | 2.8 |
| 4 | 12.3 | 2.6 | 11.6 | 2.9 | 6.2 | 1.3 | 5.8 | 1.5 |
| 5 | 20.9 | 7.1 | 46.2 | 6.7 | 10.5 | 3.6 | 23.1 | 3.4 |
| 6 | 14.4 | 3.2 | 11.4 | 4.1 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 5.7 | 2.1 |
| 7 | 37.4 | 5.1 | 58.1 | 9.8 | 18.7 | 2.6 | 29.1 | 4.9 |
| 8 | 9.6 | 1.0 | 15.6 | 0.9 | 4.8 | 0.5 | 7.8 | 0.5 |
| 9 | 16.7 | 3.8 | 12.5 | 6.1 | 8.4 | 1.9 | 6.3 | 3.1 |
| 10 | 15.5 | 9.9 | 15.3 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 5.0 | 7.7 | 4.1 |
| 11 | 16.7 | 12.9 | 15.5 | 9.3 | 8.4 | 6.5 | 7.8 | 4.7 |
| 12 | 20.3 | 2.1 | 11.8 | 2.2 | 10.2 | 1.1 | 5.9 | 1.1 |
| 13 | 28.9 | 3.1 | 28.5 | 3.1 | 14.5 | 1.6 | 14.3 | 1.6 |
| 14 | 16.0 | 10.3 | 18.1 | 5.8 | 8.0 | 5.2 | 9.1 | 2.9 |
| 15 | 12.3 | 1.0 | 7.3 | 0.6 | 6.2 | 0.5 | 3.7 | 0.3 |
| 16 | 8.5 | 0.6 | 8.2 | 0.7 | 4.3 | 0.3 | 4.1 | 0.4 |
| 17 | 13.7 | 7.7 | 31.8 | 10.2 | 6.9 | 3.9 | 15.9 | 5.1 |
| 18 | 16.4 | 9.4 | 22.4 | 15.6 | 8.2 | 4.7 | 11.2 | 7.8 |
| Total | 16.4 | 9.4 | 22.4 | 15.6 | 8.2 | 4.7 | 11.2 | 7.8 |
Fig. 7Illustration for classification of pixel errors for point transformation
Results of the temperature extraction
| MAE cpTD ( | ||
|---|---|---|
| Fold | Mean | SD |
| 1 | 0.77 | 0.32 |
| 2 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| 3 | 0.37 | 0.41 |
| 4 | 0.47 | 0.62 |
| 5 | 0.51 | 0.42 |
| 6 | 0.67 | 0.47 |
| 7 | 0.97 | 0.38 |
| 8 | 0.24 | 0.12 |
| 9 | 0.40 | 0.49 |
| 10 | 0.45 | 0.68 |
| 11 | 0.35 | 0.44 |
| 12 | 0.53 | 0.62 |
| 13 | 0.45 | 0.46 |
| 14 | 0.88 | 0.56 |
| 15 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
| 16 | 0.51 | 0.61 |
| 17 | 0.36 | 0.37 |
| 18 | 0.98 | 0.58 |
| Total | 0.55 | 0.67 |
Fig. 8Bland-Altman plots for extraction of cpTD
Fig. 9Different levels of distortions during measurements: a no distortion, b strong lateral position leads to less detected points, and c medical intervention results in occlusions and corrupted detections