Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1117/1.JBO.25.9.097002 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1117/1.JBO.25.9.097002 32921005!7486803!32921005     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 251.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 251.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Biomed+Opt 2020 ; 25 (9): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32921005|t=2020. Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location |pdf=|usr=}}{{32921005}} gab.com Text Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location JO: J Biomed Opt http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32921005 #FOAvip SIGNIFICANCE: Infrared thermographs (IRTs) have been used for fever screening during infectious disease epidemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although IRTs have significant potential for human body temperature measurement, the literature indicates inconsistent diagnostic performance, possibly due to wide variations in implemented methodology. A standardized method for IRT fever screening was recently published, but there is a lack of clinical data demonstrating its impact on IRT performance. AIM: Perform a clinical study to assess the diagnostic effectiveness of standardized IRT-based fever screening and evaluate the effect of facial measurement location. APPROACH: We performed a clinical study of 596 subjects. Temperatures from 17 facial locations were extracted from thermal images and compared with oral thermometry. Statistical analyses included calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values for detection of febrile subjects. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients for IRT-based and reference (oral) temperatures were found to vary strongly with measurement location. Approaches based on maximum temperatures in either inner canthi or full-face regions indicated stronger discrimination ability than maximum forehead temperature (AUC values of 0.95 to 0.97 versus 0.86 to 0.87, respectively) and other specific facial locations. These values are markedly better than the vast majority of results found in prior human studies of IRT-based fever screening. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide clinical confirmation of the utility of consensus approaches for fever screening, including the use of inner canthi temperatures, while also indicating that full-face maximum temperatures may provide an effective alternate approach. Twit Text FOAVip Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location ????J Biomed Opt http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32921005 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32921005 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32921005}}</ref> Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location #MMPMID32921005 Zhou Y; Ghassemi P; Chen M; McBride D; Casamento JP; Pfefer TJ; Wang Q J Biomed Opt 2020[Sep]; 25 (9): ä PMID32921005show ga SIGNIFICANCE: Infrared thermographs (IRTs) have been used for fever screening during infectious disease epidemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although IRTs have significant potential for human body temperature measurement, the literature indicates inconsistent diagnostic performance, possibly due to wide variations in implemented methodology. A standardized method for IRT fever screening was recently published, but there is a lack of clinical data demonstrating its impact on IRT performance. AIM: Perform a clinical study to assess the diagnostic effectiveness of standardized IRT-based fever screening and evaluate the effect of facial measurement location. APPROACH: We performed a clinical study of 596 subjects. Temperatures from 17 facial locations were extracted from thermal images and compared with oral thermometry. Statistical analyses included calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values for detection of febrile subjects. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients for IRT-based and reference (oral) temperatures were found to vary strongly with measurement location. Approaches based on maximum temperatures in either inner canthi or full-face regions indicated stronger discrimination ability than maximum forehead temperature (AUC values of 0.95 to 0.97 versus 0.86 to 0.87, respectively) and other specific facial locations. These values are markedly better than the vast majority of results found in prior human studies of IRT-based fever screening. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide clinical confirmation of the utility of consensus approaches for fever screening, including the use of inner canthi temperatures, while also indicating that full-face maximum temperatures may provide an effective alternate approach. |*Body Temperature[MESH] |Adolescent[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |Area Under Curve[MESH] |Betacoronavirus[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis[MESH] |Face/*physiology[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Fever/*diagnosis[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Infrared Rays[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Mass Screening/methods[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis[MESH] |Practice Guidelines as Topic[MESH] |ROC Curve[MESH] |Reproducibility of Results[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Thermography/*methods[MESH]Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consens(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing