Infrared Thermography for Measuring Elevated Body Temperature: Clinical Accuracy, Calibration, and Evaluation
| dc.contributor.author | Wang, Quanzeng | |
| dc.contributor.author | Zhou, Yangling | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ghassemi, Pejman | |
| dc.contributor.author | McBride, David | |
| dc.contributor.author | Casamento, Jon P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Pfefer, T. Joshua | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-25T15:36:28Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-25T15:36:28Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021-12-29 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Infrared thermographs (IRTs) implemented according to standardized best practices have shown strong potential for detecting elevated body temperatures (EBT), which may be useful in clinical settings and during infectious disease epidemics. However, optimal IRT calibration methods have not been established and the clinical performance of these devices relative to the more common non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) remains unclear. In addition to confirming the findings of our preliminary analysis of clinical study results, the primary intent of this study was to compare methods for IRT calibration and identify best practices for assessing the performance of IRTs intended to detect EBT. A key secondary aim was to compare IRT clinical accuracy to that of NCITs. We performed a clinical thermographic imaging study of more than 1000 subjects, acquiring temperature data from several facial locations that, along with reference oral temperatures, were used to calibrate two IRT systems based on seven different regression methods. Oral temperatures imputed from facial data were used to evaluate IRT clinical accuracy based on metrics such as clinical bias (Δcb), repeatability, root-mean-square difference, and sensitivity/specificity. We proposed several calibration approaches designed to account for the non-uniform data density across the temperature range and a constant offset approach tended to show better ability to detect EBT. As in our prior study, inner canthi or full-face maximum temperatures provided the highest clinical accuracy. With an optimal calibration approach, these methods achieved a Δcb between ±0.03 °C with standard deviation (σΔcb) less than 0.3 °C, and sensitivity/specificity between 84% and 94%. Results of forehead-center measurements with NCITs or IRTs indicated reduced performance. An analysis of the complete clinical data set confirms the essential findings of our preliminary evaluation, with minor differences. Our findings provide novel insights into methods and metrics for the clinical accuracy assessment of IRTs. Furthermore, our results indicate that calibration approaches providing the highest clinical accuracy in the 37–38.5 °C range may be most effective for measuring EBT. While device performance depends on many factors, IRTs can provide superior performance to NCITs | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Funding: This research was funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Counter measures Initiative (MCMi) Regulatory Science Program (Fund# 16ECDRH407). Acknowledgments: This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and FDA. The authors gratefully acknowledge the University Health Center of the University of Maryland at College Park for their outstanding collaboration with the research team during the clinical study; Feiming Chen for his valuable advice on statistical analysis; Stacey Sullivan, Jean Rinaldi, Prasanna Hariharan, and Oleg Vesnovsky for helpful discussions regarding the comparison between IRT and NCIT devices. Disclaimer: The mention of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products by the Department of Health and Human Services. This article reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA’s views or policies. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. | en_US |
| dc.description.uri | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/1/215/htm | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 25 pages | en_US |
| dc.genre | journal articles | en_US |
| dc.identifier | doi:10.13016/m2iqnl-upyf | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Wang, Quanzeng, Yangling Zhou, Pejman Ghassemi, David McBride, Jon P. Casamento, and T. J. Pfefer. 2022. "Infrared Thermography for Measuring Elevated Body Temperature: Clinical Accuracy, Calibration, and Evaluation" Sensors 22, no. 1: 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010215 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010215 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11603/24078 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | MDPI | en_US |
| dc.relation.isAvailableAt | The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | UMBC Mechanical Engineering Department Collection | |
| dc.rights | This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author. | en_US |
| dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) | * |
| dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | * |
| dc.title | Infrared Thermography for Measuring Elevated Body Temperature: Clinical Accuracy, Calibration, and Evaluation | en_US |
| dc.type | Text | en_US |