Pressure Ulcer Categorisation using Deep Learning: A Clinical Trial to Evaluate Model Performance

• Main Authors: Fergus, Paul, Chalmers, Carl, Henderson, William, Roberts, Danny, Waraich, Atif
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 07.03.2022
• Subjects: Computer Science - Artificial Intelligence; Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; Computer Science - Learning
• DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2203.06248

Pressure ulcers are a challenge for patients and healthcare professionals. In the UK, 700,000 people are affected by pressure ulcers each year. Treating them costs the National Health Service {\pounds}3.8 million every day. Their etiology is complex and multifactorial. However, evidence has shown a strong link between old age, disease-related sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy eating habits. Pressure ulcers are caused by direct skin contact with a bed or chair without frequent position changes. Urinary and faecal incontinence, diabetes, and injuries that restrict body position and nutrition are also known risk factors. Guidelines and treatments exist but their implementation and success vary across different healthcare settings. This is primarily because healthcare practitioners have a) minimal experience in dealing with pressure ulcers, and b) a general lack of understanding of pressure ulcer treatments. Poorly managed, pressure ulcers lead to severe pain, poor quality of life, and significant healthcare costs. In this paper, we report the findings of a clinical trial conducted by Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust that evaluated the performance of a faster region-based convolutional neural network and mobile platform that categorised and documented pressure ulcers. The neural network classifies category I, II, III, and IV pressure ulcers, deep tissue injuries, and unstageable pressure ulcers. Photographs of pressure ulcers taken by district nurses are transmitted over 4/5G communications to an inferencing server for classification. Classified images are stored and reviewed to assess the model's predictions and relevance as a tool for clinical decision making and standardised reporting. The results from the study generated a mean average Precision=0.6796, Recall=0.6997, F1-Score=0.6786 with 45 false positives using an @.75 confidence score threshold.