Automated Pain Spots Recognition Algorithm Provided by a Web Service–Based Platform: Instrument Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Understanding the causes and mechanisms underlying musculoskeletal pain is crucial for developing effective treatments and improving patient outcomes. Self-report measures, such as the Pain Drawing Scale, involve individuals rating their level of pain on a scale. In this technique, individuals color the area where they experience pain, and the resulting picture is rated based on the depicted pain intensity. Analyzing pain drawings (PDs) typically involves measuring the size of the pain region. There are several studies focusing on assessing the clinical use of PDs, and now, with the introduction of digital PDs, the usability and reliability of these platforms need validation. Comparative studies between traditional and digital PDs have shown good agreement and reliability. The evolution of PD acquisition over the last 2 decades mirrors the commercialization of digital technologies. However, the pen-on-paper approach seems to be more accepted by patients, but there is currently no standardized method for scanning PDs. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PD analysis performed by a web platform using various digital scanners. The primary goal was to demonstrate that simple and affordable mobile devices can be used to acquire PDs without losing important information. Methods: Two sets of PDs were generated: one with the addition of 216 colored circles and another composed of various red shapes distributed randomly on a frontal view body chart of an adult male. These drawings were then printed in color on A4 sheets, including QR codes at the corners in order to allow automatic alignment, and subsequently scanned using different devices and apps. The scanners used were flatbed scanners of different sizes and prices (professional, portable flatbed, and home printer or scanner), smartphones with varying price ranges, and 6 virtual scanner apps. The acquisitions were made under normal light conditions by the same operator. Results: High-saturation colors, such as red, cyan, magenta, and yellow, were accurately identified by all devices. The percentage error for small, medium, and large pain spots was consistently below 20% for all devices, with smaller values associated with larger areas. In addition, a significant negative correlation was observed between the percentage of error and spot size (R=-0.237; P=.04). The proposed platform proved to be robust and reliable for acquiring paper PDs via a wide range of scanning devices. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a web platform can accurately analyze PDs acquired through various digital scanners. The findings support the use of simple and cost-effective mobile devices for PD acquisition without compromising the quality of data. Standardizing the scanning process using the proposed platform can contribute to more efficient and consistent PD analysis in clinical and research settings.
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 | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».