Cargando…
Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools
Purpose: To introduce and validate hvf_extraction_script, an open-source software script for the automated extraction and structuring of metadata, value plot data, and percentile plot data from Humphrey visual field (HVF) report images. Methods: Validation was performed on 90 HVF reports over three...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8116600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33996848 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.625487 |
_version_ | 1783691429177982976 |
---|---|
author | Saifee, Murtaza Wu, Jian Liu, Yingna Ma, Ping Patlidanon, Jutima Yu, Yinxi Ying, Gui-Shuang Han, Ying |
author_facet | Saifee, Murtaza Wu, Jian Liu, Yingna Ma, Ping Patlidanon, Jutima Yu, Yinxi Ying, Gui-Shuang Han, Ying |
author_sort | Saifee, Murtaza |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: To introduce and validate hvf_extraction_script, an open-source software script for the automated extraction and structuring of metadata, value plot data, and percentile plot data from Humphrey visual field (HVF) report images. Methods: Validation was performed on 90 HVF reports over three different report layouts, including a total of 1,530 metadata fields, 15,536 value plot data points, and 10,210 percentile data points, between the computer script and four human extractors, compared against DICOM reference data. Computer extraction and human extraction were compared on extraction time as well as accuracy of extraction for metadata, value plot data, and percentile plot data. Results: Computer extraction required 4.9-8.9 s per report, compared to the 6.5-19 min required by human extractors, representing a more than 40-fold difference in extraction speed. Computer metadata extraction error rate varied from an aggregate 1.2-3.5%, compared to 0.2-9.2% for human metadata extraction across all layouts. Computer value data point extraction had an aggregate error rate of 0.9% for version 1, <0.01% in version 2, and 0.15% in version 3, compared to 0.8-9.2% aggregate error rate for human extraction. Computer percentile data point extraction similarly had very low error rates, with no errors occurring in version 1 and 2, and 0.06% error rate in version 3, compared to 0.06-12.2% error rate for human extraction. Conclusions: This study introduces and validates hvf_extraction_script, an open-source tool for fast, accurate, automated data extraction of HVF reports to facilitate analysis of large-volume HVF datasets, and demonstrates the value of image processing tools in facilitating faster and cheaper large-volume data extraction in research settings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8116600 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81166002021-05-14 Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools Saifee, Murtaza Wu, Jian Liu, Yingna Ma, Ping Patlidanon, Jutima Yu, Yinxi Ying, Gui-Shuang Han, Ying Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine Purpose: To introduce and validate hvf_extraction_script, an open-source software script for the automated extraction and structuring of metadata, value plot data, and percentile plot data from Humphrey visual field (HVF) report images. Methods: Validation was performed on 90 HVF reports over three different report layouts, including a total of 1,530 metadata fields, 15,536 value plot data points, and 10,210 percentile data points, between the computer script and four human extractors, compared against DICOM reference data. Computer extraction and human extraction were compared on extraction time as well as accuracy of extraction for metadata, value plot data, and percentile plot data. Results: Computer extraction required 4.9-8.9 s per report, compared to the 6.5-19 min required by human extractors, representing a more than 40-fold difference in extraction speed. Computer metadata extraction error rate varied from an aggregate 1.2-3.5%, compared to 0.2-9.2% for human metadata extraction across all layouts. Computer value data point extraction had an aggregate error rate of 0.9% for version 1, <0.01% in version 2, and 0.15% in version 3, compared to 0.8-9.2% aggregate error rate for human extraction. Computer percentile data point extraction similarly had very low error rates, with no errors occurring in version 1 and 2, and 0.06% error rate in version 3, compared to 0.06-12.2% error rate for human extraction. Conclusions: This study introduces and validates hvf_extraction_script, an open-source tool for fast, accurate, automated data extraction of HVF reports to facilitate analysis of large-volume HVF datasets, and demonstrates the value of image processing tools in facilitating faster and cheaper large-volume data extraction in research settings. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8116600/ /pubmed/33996848 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.625487 Text en Copyright © 2021 Saifee, Wu, Liu, Ma, Patlidanon, Yu, Ying and Han. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Medicine Saifee, Murtaza Wu, Jian Liu, Yingna Ma, Ping Patlidanon, Jutima Yu, Yinxi Ying, Gui-Shuang Han, Ying Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools |
title | Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools |
title_full | Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools |
title_fullStr | Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools |
title_full_unstemmed | Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools |
title_short | Development and Validation of Automated Visual Field Report Extraction Platform Using Computer Vision Tools |
title_sort | development and validation of automated visual field report extraction platform using computer vision tools |
topic | Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8116600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33996848 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.625487 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT saifeemurtaza developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT wujian developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT liuyingna developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT maping developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT patlidanonjutima developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT yuyinxi developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT yingguishuang developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools AT hanying developmentandvalidationofautomatedvisualfieldreportextractionplatformusingcomputervisiontools |