Back

Principles and test methods of non-contact body thermometry

Beall, E. B.; Askegaard, L.; Berkesch, J.; Adolph, A. C.; Hinnerichs, C. M.; Schmidt, M. F.

2022-02-01 public and global health
10.1101/2022.01.28.22269746 medRxiv
Show abstract

SignificanceFar infrared (IR) has a long history in thermometry and febrile screening. Concerns have been raised recently over the accuracy of non-contact body thermometry. Clinical testing with febrile individuals constitutes the standard performance assessment. This is challenging to replicate, which may have inadvertently allowed approval of IR systems that are unable to detect fevers. The ability to test performance without relying on febrile participants would have ramifications for public health, especially if this discovered undisclosed differences in accuracy in widely used devices. AimTo identify foundational issues in, demonstrate principles of, and develop test methods for non-contact body thermometry. ApproachWe review foundational literature and identify confounds impeding performance of IR thermography (IRT) and non-contact IR thermometry (NCIT) for febrile screening and demonstrate corrections for their effects, which would otherwise be unacceptable. Almost none of the devices we are aware of compensate for these confounds. We reverse-engineer surface-to-body temperature relations for several FDA-cleared NCITs. We note their similarity to recently reported bias-to-normal behavior in other devices and determine range of body temperatures for which the device would produce a "normal" (non-febrile) output. Finally, we generate predictable elevated face temperatures in healthy subjects and demonstrate this in several devices. ResultsThe surface-to-body relationships for two IRT and one NCIT were linear, while all others exhibited nonlinear bias-to-normal behavior that produce normal temperatures when presented with surface temperatures ranging from hypothermia to moderate-to-severe fever. The test method was used in healthy, non-febrile subjects to generate elevated temperatures corresponding to body temperatures from 97.35F to 102.45F. Three out of five systems had negligible sensitivity. ConclusionsThis demonstrates an alternative evaluation method without the limitations and risks of febrile patients. These results indicate many devices may be unusable for body thermometry and may be providing a false sense of security for public health surveillance.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 2%
41.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 14%
5.7%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.5%
4
Open Research Europe
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
6
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.2%
7
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
9
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
10
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
11
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
12
Journal of Biomedical Optics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
13
Neurophotonics
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
14
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
Physics of Fluids
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
19
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
21
Journal of Visualized Experiments
34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
22
HardwareX
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
26
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Advanced Functional Materials
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
28
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
29
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.6%
30
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%