Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hayat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: