RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The traditional measurement of heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), blood pressure (BP), and respiratory rate (RR) via physical examination can be challenging, and the recent pandemic has accelerated trends toward telehealth and remote monitoring. Instead of going to the physician to check these vital signs, measuring them at home would be more convenient. Vital sign monitors, also known as physiological parameter monitors, are electronic devices that measure and display biological information about patients under constant monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy of the pulse SpO2, HR, BP, and RR raised by Docsun Telehealth Portal by comparing it with approved medical devices. METHODS: This is a noninvasive, self-check, system-based study conducted to validate the detection of vital signs (SpO2, HR, BP, and RR) raised by Docsun Telehealth Portal. The input for software processing involves facial screening without any accessories on the face, scanning directly through the software application portal. The participant's facial features are detected and screened for the extraction of necessary readings. RESULTS: For the validation of HR, SpO2, BP, and RR measurements, the main outcomes were the mean of the absolute difference between the respective investigational devices and the reference values as well as the absolute percentage difference between the respective investigational devices and the reference values. If the HR was within ±10% of the reference standard or 5 beats per minute, it was considered acceptable for clinical purposes. The average absolute difference between the Docsun Telehealth Portal and the reference values was 1.41 (SD 1.14) beats per minute. The mean absolute percentage difference was 1.69% (SD 1.37). Therefore, the Docsun Telehealth Portal met the predefined accuracy cutoff for HR measurements. If the RR was within ±10% of the reference standard or 3 breaths per minute, it was considered acceptable for clinical purposes. The average absolute difference between the Docsun Telehealth Portal and the reference values was 0.86 breaths per minute. The mean absolute percentage difference was 4.72%. Therefore, the Docsun Telehealth Portal met the predefined accuracy cutoff for RR measurements. SpO2 levels were considered acceptable if the average absolute difference between the Docsun Telehealth Portal and the reference values was ±3%. The mean absolute percentage difference was 0.59%. Therefore, the Docsun Telehealth Portal met the predefined accuracy cutoff for SpO2 measurements. The Docsun Telehealth Portal predicted systolic BP with an accuracy of 94.81% and diastolic BP with an accuracy of 95.71%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that the accuracy of the HR, BP, SpO2, and RR values raised by the Docsun Telehealth Portal, compared against the clinically approved medical devices, proved to be accurate by meeting predefined accuracy guidelines.
RESUMO
The presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a poor prognostic finding. This is difficult to identify on routine hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained slides, but considering the costs and time required for examination, immunohistochemical stains for the endothelium are not the recommended diagnostic protocol. We developed an AI-based automated method for LVI identification on H&E-stained slides. We selected two separate groups of UC patients with transurethral resection specimens. Group A had 105 patients (100 with UC; 5 with cystitis); group B had 55 patients (all with high-grade UC; D2-40 and CD34 immunohistochemical stains performed on each block). All the group A slides and 52 H&E cases from group B showing LVI using immunohistochemistry were scanned using an Aperio GT450 automatic scanner. We performed a pixel-per-pixel semantic segmentation of selected areas, and we trained InternImage to identify several classes. The DiceCoefficient and Intersection-over-Union scores for LVI detection using our method were 0.77 and 0.52, respectively. The pathologists' H&E-based evaluation in group B revealed 89.65% specificity, 42.30% sensitivity, 67.27% accuracy, and an F1 score of 0.55, which is much lower than the algorithm's DCC of 0.77. Our model outlines LVI on H&E-stained-slides more effectively than human examiners; thus, it proves a valuable tool for pathologists.