Advertisement

Classification of Similarity-Looking Drugs by Human Perception

  • Jinhyung KimEmail author
  • Minji Park
  • Choeun Kim
  • Eunah Choi
  • Byeol Kim
  • Taezoon ParkEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the similarities of drug shapes for preventing medical accidents due to similar appearances. According to the Medical Error Corrective Guidance published by the Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare’s policy team, a number of pairs of medicine that should be treated carefully in order to prevent confusion. However, systematic investigation on which morphological factors cause confusion is not enough yet. In this study, investigated human’s perception of similar drugs experimentally. As the first step, 15,000 tablet images were collected from the Korea Food & Drug Administration’s online medicine library. Among them, 100 randomly selected images were used for card sorting experiment to construct a similarity matrix. The tablets were classified into several groups based on the similarity score analyzed by multidimensional scaling (MDS). The result showed that people have a tendency to classify tablets by shape, color, size and material.

Keywords

Human perception Card sorting Multidimensional scaling Drug error 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study is supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (No. 2017R1D1A1B03032632).

References

  1. 1.
    Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J., Donaldson, M.S.: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To Error is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rich, D.S.: A process for interpreting data on adverse drug events: determining optimal target levels. Clin. Ther. 20(Suppl. C), C59–C71 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Pharmacopeia 8th Annual MEDMARX Report Indicates Look-Alike/Sound-Alike Drugs Lead to Thousands of Medication Errors Nationwide. http://www.usp.org/search/site/medication%20error%20reporting. Accessed 7 Apr 2012
  4. 4.
    Ministry of Health and Welfare: Guidelines for Preventing Medication Error. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Gwacheon, pp. 91–93 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emmerton, L.M., Rizk, M.F.S.: Look-alike and soundalike medicines: risks and solutions. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 34, 4–8 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, Y.B., Park, U., Jain, A.K.: PILL-ID matching and retrieval of drug pill imprint images. In: 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pp. 2632–2635 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu, C.C., Wen, C.Y., Lu, C.P., Chen, Y.F.: The drug tablet image retrieval system based on content-based image retrieval. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control 8(7(A)), 4497–4508 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Republic of Korea. http://drug.mfds.go.kr/html/index.j. Accessed 2018
  9. 9.
    Annasaro, E., Hema, A.: Color and shape feature extraction and matching in pill identification systems. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 5(2), 1011–1015 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 85, 327–352 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gärdenfors, P.: How to make the semantic web more semantic. In: Varzi, A., Vieu, L. (eds.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Proceedings of the Third International Conference (FOIS 2004). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 114, pp. 153–164. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johannesson, M.: Combining integral and separable subspaces. In: Moore, J.D., Stenning, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 447–452. Lawrence Erlbaum (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steyvers, M., Busey, T.: Predicting similarity ratings to faces using physical descriptions. In: Wenger, M., Townsend, J. (eds.) Computational, Geometric, and Process Perspectives on Facial Cognition: Contexts and Challenges. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1–18 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, J., Kahana, M.J., Sekuler, R.: Similarity effects in name-face recognition: a dual-process, summed-similarity account (2012). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee95/0c60f57f9d4290186c0c59b8d997ffb4260b.pdf/access. Accessed 30 July 2018
  15. 15.
    Schwering, A., Raubal, M.: Measuring semantic similarity between geospatial conceptual regions. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3799, pp. 90–106 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Healey, C.G.: Choosing effective colours for data visualization. Proc. IEEE Vis. 493, 263–270 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonnel, A., Prinzmetal, W.: Dividing attention between the color and the shape of objects. Percept. Psychophys. 60, 113–124 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogowitz, B.E., Frese, T., Smith, J., Bouman, C.A., Kalin, E.: Perceptual image similarity experiments. In: Proceedings of IS&T/SPIE Conference on Human Vision Electronic Imaging III, San Jose, CA, pp. 576–590 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viviani, P., Aymoz, C.: Colour, form, and movement are not perceived simultaneously. Vis. Res. 41, 2909–2918 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00160-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torres, G.J., Basnet, R.B., Sung, A.H., Mukkamala, S., Ribeiro, B.M.: A similarity measure for clustering and its applications. Int. J. Elect. Comput. Syst. Eng. 3, 164–170 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bock, H.H.: Multidimensional scaling in the framework of cluster analysis. In: Hermes, H.J., Optiz, O., Degens, P.O. (eds.) Studien zur Klassifikation: [Classification and its Environment], vol. 17, pp. 247–258. INDEKS-Verlag, Frankfurt (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Information Systems EngineeringSoongsil UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations