Technical Comparison of OCR Engines
Among the most widely used OCR engines in healthcare are Tesseract, EasyOCR, and PaddleOCR. Each engine offers a unique balance between accuracy, speed, language support, and ease of integration.
Tesseract is a well-established open-source OCR engine. It provides medium accuracy on medical documents (around 70–80%) but tends to perform slowly, especially on large datasets. It supports many languages and integrates through command-line tools or Python wrappers. However, it struggles with handwritten inputs and low-quality scans.
EasyOCR shows improved performance, delivering 80–90% accuracy on scanned healthcare documents. It supports around 80 languages and runs as a lightweight Python package. Its speed is moderate, and it offers better handling of complex document layouts such as tables and columns.
PaddleOCR, developed by Baidu, is known for its high accuracy (85–95%) and fast inference speed. It supports multilingual OCR with a focus on Chinese and other Asian languages. As a Python package, it’s well-suited for microservice deployment in modern AI pipelines. It also performs exceptionally well with structured documents and dense forms.
In general, EasyOCR and PaddleOCR outperform Tesseract when dealing with complex formatting, handwriting, or low-resolution scans.
Performance Benchmarking Methodology
To evaluate OCR performance for healthcare use cases, we used publicly available datasets including medical forms, prescriptions, and de-identified hospital documents (e.g., MIMIC samples). The evaluation considered metrics such as Character Error Rate (CER), Word Error Rate (WER), and inference time per page.
Benchmarks were executed using custom Python scripts that leveraged tools like timeit for timing, Levenshtein distance for accuracy scoring, and OpenCV for consistent pre-processing. Each OCR engine was tested on a sample of 100 randomly selected documents. Pre-processing techniques such as binarization, skew correction, and noise removal were uniformly applied to ensure fair comparison.
The results revealed that pre-processing significantly improves OCR accuracy—sometimes by as much as 20%.
Implementation Considerations
In real-world healthcare deployments, several implementation choices can influence the overall OCR pipeline performance.
Pre-processing is crucial. Techniques like noise reduction, thresholding, and rotation correction before OCR drastically improve text clarity and extraction accuracy.
Post-processing includes using medical term dictionaries or spell checkers to correct OCR output. This helps reduce misinterpretation of critical terms (e.g., medication names).
Integration strategy should consider deploying the OCR engine as a microservice. This enables modular integration with downstream systems like Natural Language Processing (NLP), Electronic Health Records (EHR), or decision support engines.
Top comments (0)