Defining the Operating Envelope of Camera-Based Optical Character Recognition for Structured Data Capture from Non-Interoperable ICU Bedside Device Displays: A Controlled Technical Validation Study

Many intensive care unit bedside devices lack interoperable digital outputs, so clinically important readings are transferred into records by intermittent manual charting. Camera-based optical character recognition (OCR) offers an interface-independent alternative, but its value depends on identifying acquisition conditions under which structured extraction remains reliable and conditions under which output should be withheld. We evaluated a frame-sampled pipeline comprising display localisation, segmentation, pre-processing, OCR, clinical dictionary-based normalisation, and layered quality-control gating. A total of 151,763 usable frames were included in the primary evaluation across seven bedside instruments, three camera platforms, distances of 36 to 390 inches, viewing angles of 0 to 80 degrees, five lighting conditions, and two layouts. Per-stratum performance intervals are binomial Wilson and Clopper–Pearson intervals; the sampling-density transition estimates include bootstrap uncertainty. In an independently double-annotated stratified subset of 750 frames, Cohen’s kappa ranged from 0.89 to 0.97 across categorical annotations. Exact agreement was 96.4% for numeric values (95% CI 94.8–97.6%) and 94.8% for strings and labels (95% CI 93.0–96.3%); pooled exact agreement was 95.1% (95% CI 93.4–96.5%) and pooled kappa was 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.95). At 36 inches and near-frontal orientation, device-level sensitivity and precision were 0.990 and 0.997, 0.931 and 0.937, and 0.782 and 0.787 for the mirrorless, Raspberry Pi, and consumer webcam platforms, respectively. By 74 inches at near-frontal orientation, device-level sensitivity had fallen to 0.617, 0.515, and 0.309, respectively, showing that physical distance alone does not define a stable bedside operating range. Effective display sampling density described extraction performance more consistently across cameras than physical distance alone; the 0.90 complete device-level extraction transition was approximately 9.8 px/cm (bootstrap 95% CI 8.7–11.4 px/cm), a workflow-specific provisional empirical estimate rather than a validated operational threshold. Precision remained comparatively high as sensitivity declined; this is reported as observed system-level behaviour rather than causal evidence for any individual pipeline stage.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioengineering
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13111303
Primary Topic
Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Defining the Operating Envelope of Camera-Based Optical Character Recognition for Structured Data Capture from Non-Interoperable ICU Bedside Device Displays: A Controlled Technical Validation Study

Logan Froese, Kevin Y. Stein, Rakibul Hasan, Frederick Adam Zeiler et al.
Bioengineering
Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
article

Defining the Operating Envelope of Camera-Based Optical Character Recognition for Structured Data Capture from Non-Interoperable ICU Bedside Device Displays: A Controlled Technical Validation Study

Logan Froese, Kevin Y. Stein, Rakibul Hasan, Frederick Adam Zeiler, Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi, Nuray Vakitbilir, Mansoor Hayat, Tobias J. G. Bergmann, Isuru Sachitha Herath, Noah Silvaggio, Michael Movshovich, Vuk Roca, Jaewoong Moon
article en

Abstract

Many intensive care unit bedside devices lack interoperable digital outputs, so clinically important readings are transferred into records by intermittent manual charting. Camera-based optical character recognition (OCR) offers an interface-independent alternative, but its value depends on identifying acquisition conditions under which structured extraction remains reliable and conditions under which output should be withheld. We evaluated a frame-sampled pipeline comprising display localisation, segmentation, pre-processing, OCR, clinical dictionary-based normalisation, and layered quality-control gating. A total of 151,763 usable frames were included in the primary evaluation across seven bedside instruments, three camera platforms, distances of 36 to 390 inches, viewing angles of 0 to 80 degrees, five lighting conditions, and two layouts. Per-stratum performance intervals are binomial Wilson and Clopper–Pearson intervals; the sampling-density transition estimates include bootstrap uncertainty. In an independently double-annotated stratified subset of 750 frames, Cohen’s kappa ranged from 0.89 to 0.97 across categorical annotations. Exact agreement was 96.4% for numeric values (95% CI 94.8–97.6%) and 94.8% for strings and labels (95% CI 93.0–96.3%); pooled exact agreement was 95.1% (95% CI 93.4–96.5%) and pooled kappa was 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.95). At 36 inches and near-frontal orientation, device-level sensitivity and precision were 0.990 and 0.997, 0.931 and 0.937, and 0.782 and 0.787 for the mirrorless, Raspberry Pi, and consumer webcam platforms, respectively. By 74 inches at near-frontal orientation, device-level sensitivity had fallen to 0.617, 0.515, and 0.309, respectively, showing that physical distance alone does not define a stable bedside operating range. Effective display sampling density described extraction performance more consistently across cameras than physical distance alone; the 0.90 complete device-level extraction transition was approximately 9.8 px/cm (bootstrap 95% CI 8.7–11.4 px/cm), a workflow-specific provisional empirical estimate rather than a validated operational threshold. Precision remained comparatively high as sensitivity declined; this is reported as observed system-level behaviour rather than causal evidence for any individual pipeline stage.

BioengineeringVol. 13(11)
Karolinska University Hospital (SE), University of Cambridge (GB), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB), Pan Am Clinic Foundation (CA), University of Manitoba (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon