4.5 Article

Automatic Segmentation of Monofilament Testing Sites in Plantar Images for Diabetic Foot Management

Journal

BIOENGINEERING-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9030086

Keywords

Semmes-Weinstein; monofilament; diabetic foot; automatic

Funding

  1. [FCT-UIDB/04730/2020]
  2. [FCT-UIDB/50014/2020]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UIDB/50014/2020] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a major complication of diabetes mellitus and leads to foot ulceration and amputations. This study aims to reduce human intervention in diabetic foot testing by using a computer vision-based automated system. The first part of the study successfully developed a system for automatically identifying testing sites.
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a major complication of diabetes mellitus, and it is the leading cause of foot ulceration and amputations. The Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination (SWME) is a widely used, low-cost, evidence-based tool for predicting the prognosis of diabetic foot patients. The examination can be quick, but due to the high prevalence of the disease, many healthcare professionals can be assigned to this task several days per month. In an ongoing project, it is our objective to minimize the intervention of humans in the SWME by using an automated testing system relying on computer vision. In this paper we present the project's first part, constituting a system for automatically identifying the SWME testing sites from digital images. For this, we have created a database of plantar images and developed a segmentation system, based on image processing and deep learning-both of which are novelties. From the 9 testing sites, the system was able to correctly identify most 8 in more than 80% of the images, and 3 of the testing sites were correctly identified in more than 97.8% of the images.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available