MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MediCaption: Integrating YOLO-Driven Computer Vision and NLP for Advanced Pharmaceutical Package Recognition and Annotation

2024· preprint· en· W4393343556 on OpenAlexaff
Aarthi Lakshmipathy, Madhurima Vardhineedi, Venkata Ramana Patnaik Sekharamahanthi, Devanshi Dineshbhai Patel, Saurav Saini, Sabah Mohammed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure patient safety and reduce the incidence of prescription errors, the healthcare industry places a high priority on the availability and accuracy of pharmaceutical information. MediCaption offers a unique solution to this issue with its integrated system, which combines the capabilities of computer vision driven with a state-of-the-art object detection model YOLO-v8 by Ultralytics [1], robust natural language processing (NLP), text-to-speech (TTS), and optical character recognition (OCR). This Project utilizes advanced AI and image processing to quickly and accurately annotate pharmaceutical packaging with key information like drug names, uses, and side effects, significantly reducing medication management errors and enhancing information precision and usability. Using a dataset of 372 pharmaceutical packages from Kaggle (Shah, 2021) [2], we annotated it with Roboflow and trained it using the YOLO-v8 model, achieving precise medicine name detection through bounding box accuracy. This enabled effective text extraction via OCR, following NLP preprocessing by matching against a medicinal database, allowed for the generation of informative captions. To improve user accessibility, these captions were subsequently translated into audio using Text-to-Speech (TTS) technology. This system is designed with computational efficiency and user accessibility in mind, making it beneficial for a wide array of users, including those with visual impairments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207