Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28666029›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Expected accuracy of proximal and distal temperature estimated by wireless sensors, in relation to their number and position on the skin.

Enrico Longato, Maria Garrido, Desy Saccardo, Camila Montesinos Guevara, Ali R Mani, Massimo Bolognesi, Piero Amodio, Andrea Facchinetti, Giovanni Sparacino, Sara Montagnese

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Enrico LongatoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Maria GarridoDepartment of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Desy SaccardoDepartment of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Camila Montesinos GuevaraDepartment of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Ali R ManiDivision of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Massimo BolognesiDepartment of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Piero AmodioDepartment of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Andrea FacchinettiDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giovanni SparacinoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Sara MontagneseDepartment of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2800-9923
University of Padua · ITUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A popular method to estimate proximal/distal temperature (TPROX and TDIST) consists in calculating a weighted average of nine wireless sensors placed on pre-defined skin locations. Specifically, TPROX is derived from five sensors placed on the infra-clavicular and mid-thigh area (left and right) and abdomen, and TDIST from four sensors located on the hands and feet. In clinical practice, the loss/removal of one or more sensors is a common occurrence, but limited information is available on how this affects the accuracy of temperature estimates. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of temperature estimates in relation to number/position of sensors removed. Thirteen healthy subjects wore all nine sensors for 24 hours and reference TPROX and TDIST time-courses were calculated using all sensors. Then, all possible combinations of reduced subsets of sensors were simulated and suitable weights for each sensor calculated. The accuracy of TPROX and TDIST estimates resulting from the reduced subsets of sensors, compared to reference values, was assessed by the mean squared error, the mean absolute error (MAE), the cross-validation error and the 25th and 75th percentiles of the reconstruction error. Tables of the accuracy and sensor weights for all possible combinations of sensors are provided. For instance, in relation to TPROX, a subset of three sensors placed in any combination of three non-homologous areas (abdominal, right or left infra-clavicular, right or left mid-thigh) produced an error of 0.13°C MAE, while the loss/removal of the abdominal sensor resulted in an error of 0.25°C MAE, with the greater impact on the quality of the reconstruction. This information may help researchers/clinicians: i) evaluate the expected goodness of their TPROX and TDIST estimates based on the number of available sensors; ii) select the most appropriate subset of sensors, depending on goals and operational constraints.

Indexed as

Biosensing TechniquesTemperatureAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28666029
PMCPMC5493382
OpenAlexW2733217259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.