Wound Image Quality From a Mobile Health Tool for Home-Based Chronic Wound Management With Real-Time Quality Feedback: Randomized Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Travel to clinics for chronic wound management is burdensome to patients. Remote assessment and management of wounds using mobile and telehealth approaches can reduce this burden and improve patient outcomes. An essential step in wound documentation is the capture of wound images, but poor image quality can have a negative influence on the reliability of the assessment. To date, no study has investigated the quality of remotely acquired wound images and whether these are suitable for wound self-management and telemedical interpretation of wound status. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to develop a mobile health (mHealth) tool for the remote self-assessment of digital ulcers (DUs) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). We aimed to define and validate objective measures for assessing the image quality, evaluate whether an automated feedback feature based on real-time assessment of image quality improves the overall quality of acquired wound images, and evaluate the feasibility of deploying the mHealth tool for home-based chronic wound self-monitoring by patients with SSc. METHODS: We developed an mHealth tool composed of a wound imaging and management app, a custom color reference sticker, and a smartphone holder. We introduced 2 objective image quality parameters based on the sharpness and presence of the color checker to assess the quality of the image during acquisition and enable a quality feedback mechanism in an advanced version of the app. We randomly assigned patients with SSc and DU to the 2 device groups (basic and feedback) to self-document their DU at home over 8 weeks. The color checker detection ratio (CCDR) and color checker sharpness (CCS) were compared between the 2 groups. We evaluated the feasibility of the mHealth tool by analyzing the usability feedback from questionnaires, user behavior and timings, and the overall quality of the wound images. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients were enrolled, of which 15 patients were included in the image quality analysis. The average CCDR was 0.96 (191/199) in the feedback group and 0.86 (158/183) in the basic group. The feedback group showed significantly higher (P<.001) CCS compared to the basic group. The usability questionnaire results showed that the majority of patients were satisfied with the tool, but could benefit from disease-specific adaptations. The median assessment duration was <50 seconds in all patients, indicating the mHealth tool was efficient to use and could be integrated into the daily routine of patients. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an mHealth tool that enables patients with SSc to acquire good-quality DU images and demonstrated that it is feasible to deploy such an app in this patient group. The feedback mechanism improved the overall image quality. The introduced technical solutions consist of a further step towards reliable and trustworthy digital health for home-based self-management of wounds.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».