将人工智能引导的图像评估与当前的烧伤评估方法进行比较。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Burn Care & Research Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1093/jbcr/irae121
Justin J Lee, Mahla Abdolahnejad, Alexander Morzycki, Tara Freeman, Hannah Chan, Collin Hong, Rakesh Joshi, Joshua N Wong
{"title":"将人工智能引导的图像评估与当前的烧伤评估方法进行比较。","authors":"Justin J Lee, Mahla Abdolahnejad, Alexander Morzycki, Tara Freeman, Hannah Chan, Collin Hong, Rakesh Joshi, Joshua N Wong","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/irae121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Appropriate identification of burn depth and size is paramount. Despite the development of burn depth assessment aids [eg, laser Doppler imaging (LDI)], clinical assessment, which assesses partial-thickness burn depth with 67% accuracy, currently remains the most consistent standard of practice. We sought to develop an image-based artificial intelligence system that predicts burn severity and wound margins for use as a triaging tool in thermal injury management. Modified EfficientNet architecture trained by 1684 mobile-device-captured images of different burn depths was previously used to create a convoluted neural network (CNN). The CNN was modified to a novel boundary attention mapping (BAM) algorithm using elements of saliency mapping, which was used to recognize the boundaries of burns. For validation, 144 patient charts that included clinical assessment, burn location, total body surface area, and LDI assessment were retrieved for a retrospective study. The clinical images underwent CNN-BAM assessment and were directly compared with the LDI assessment. CNN using a 4-level burn severity classification achieved an accuracy of 85% (micro/macro-averaged receiver operating characteristic scores). The CNN-BAM system can successfully highlight burns from surrounding tissue with high confidence. CNN-BAM burn area segmentations attained a 91.6% accuracy, 78.2% sensitivity, and 93.4% specificity, when compared to LDI methodology. Results comparing the CNN-BAM outputs to clinical and LDI assessments have shown a high degree of correlation between the CNN-BAM burn severity predictions to those extrapolated from LDI healing potential (66% agreement). CNN-BAM algorithm gives equivalent burn-depth detection accuracy as LDI with a more economical and accessible application when embedded in a mobile device.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":"6-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11761738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Artificial Intelligence Guided Image Assessment to Current Methods of Burn Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Justin J Lee, Mahla Abdolahnejad, Alexander Morzycki, Tara Freeman, Hannah Chan, Collin Hong, Rakesh Joshi, Joshua N Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbcr/irae121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Appropriate identification of burn depth and size is paramount. Despite the development of burn depth assessment aids [eg, laser Doppler imaging (LDI)], clinical assessment, which assesses partial-thickness burn depth with 67% accuracy, currently remains the most consistent standard of practice. We sought to develop an image-based artificial intelligence system that predicts burn severity and wound margins for use as a triaging tool in thermal injury management. Modified EfficientNet architecture trained by 1684 mobile-device-captured images of different burn depths was previously used to create a convoluted neural network (CNN). The CNN was modified to a novel boundary attention mapping (BAM) algorithm using elements of saliency mapping, which was used to recognize the boundaries of burns. For validation, 144 patient charts that included clinical assessment, burn location, total body surface area, and LDI assessment were retrieved for a retrospective study. The clinical images underwent CNN-BAM assessment and were directly compared with the LDI assessment. CNN using a 4-level burn severity classification achieved an accuracy of 85% (micro/macro-averaged receiver operating characteristic scores). The CNN-BAM system can successfully highlight burns from surrounding tissue with high confidence. CNN-BAM burn area segmentations attained a 91.6% accuracy, 78.2% sensitivity, and 93.4% specificity, when compared to LDI methodology. Results comparing the CNN-BAM outputs to clinical and LDI assessments have shown a high degree of correlation between the CNN-BAM burn severity predictions to those extrapolated from LDI healing potential (66% agreement). CNN-BAM algorithm gives equivalent burn-depth detection accuracy as LDI with a more economical and accessible application when embedded in a mobile device.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Burn Care & Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"6-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11761738/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Burn Care & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irae121\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irae121","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正确识别烧伤深度和烧伤面积至关重要。尽管开发了烧伤深度评估辅助工具(如激光多普勒成像(LDI)),但临床评估(评估部分厚度烧伤深度的准确率为 67%)目前仍是最一致的实践标准。我们试图开发一种基于图像的人工智能系统,该系统可预测烧伤严重程度和创缘,可用作热损伤管理中的分流工具。修改后的 EfficientNet 架构由 1684 张移动设备捕获的不同烧伤深度的图像训练而成,以前曾用于创建一个卷积神经网络(CNN)。将 CNN 修改为新颖的边界-注意力映射(BAM)算法,使用突出映射的元素来识别烧伤的边界。为了进行验证,我们检索了 144 份患者病历进行回顾性研究,其中包括临床评估、烧伤位置、体表总面积和 LDI 评估。临床图像接受了 CNN-BAM 评估,并与 LDI 评估进行了直接比较。采用四级烧伤严重程度分类的 CNN 准确率达到 85%(微观/宏观平均 ROC 分数)。CNN-BAM 系统能以较高的置信度成功地从周围组织中突出烧伤。与 LDI 方法相比,CNN-BAM 烧伤区域分割的准确率为 91.6%,灵敏度为 78.2%,特异性为 93.4%。将 CNN-BAM 输出与临床和 LDI 评估进行比较的结果显示,CNN-BAM 烧伤严重程度预测与根据 LDI 愈合潜力推断的烧伤严重程度预测之间具有高度相关性(66% 的一致性)。CNN-BAM 算法的烧伤深度检测准确度与 LDI 相当,嵌入移动设备后应用更经济、更方便。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing Artificial Intelligence Guided Image Assessment to Current Methods of Burn Assessment.

Appropriate identification of burn depth and size is paramount. Despite the development of burn depth assessment aids [eg, laser Doppler imaging (LDI)], clinical assessment, which assesses partial-thickness burn depth with 67% accuracy, currently remains the most consistent standard of practice. We sought to develop an image-based artificial intelligence system that predicts burn severity and wound margins for use as a triaging tool in thermal injury management. Modified EfficientNet architecture trained by 1684 mobile-device-captured images of different burn depths was previously used to create a convoluted neural network (CNN). The CNN was modified to a novel boundary attention mapping (BAM) algorithm using elements of saliency mapping, which was used to recognize the boundaries of burns. For validation, 144 patient charts that included clinical assessment, burn location, total body surface area, and LDI assessment were retrieved for a retrospective study. The clinical images underwent CNN-BAM assessment and were directly compared with the LDI assessment. CNN using a 4-level burn severity classification achieved an accuracy of 85% (micro/macro-averaged receiver operating characteristic scores). The CNN-BAM system can successfully highlight burns from surrounding tissue with high confidence. CNN-BAM burn area segmentations attained a 91.6% accuracy, 78.2% sensitivity, and 93.4% specificity, when compared to LDI methodology. Results comparing the CNN-BAM outputs to clinical and LDI assessments have shown a high degree of correlation between the CNN-BAM burn severity predictions to those extrapolated from LDI healing potential (66% agreement). CNN-BAM algorithm gives equivalent burn-depth detection accuracy as LDI with a more economical and accessible application when embedded in a mobile device.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
535
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.
期刊最新文献
Burn center versus burn unit, which is better? Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and its Use in Burn Wounds: An Updated Systematic Review. Burn Progression in Human Skin - A Review of Current Knowledge and Opportunities for Future Research. Unplanned Extubation in the Burn Unit: A Retrospective Review. Wildland Firefighters Suffer Increasing Risk of Job-Related Death.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1