ArticleBMC research notes2019
Overcoming the challenges of iris scanning to identify minors (1-4 years) in the real-world setting.
Article in BMC research notes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Iris Scanning for Biometric Recognition of Healthy Adults Participating in an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Trial
- Long-Term Experiences of Health Care Providers Using Iris Scanning as an Identification Tool in a Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Leapfrogging with technology: introduction of a monitoring platform to support a large-scale Ebola vaccination program in Rwanda.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBiometric identification techniques for pediatric use are limited. This investigation studied iris scanning in minors aged 1-4 in two exploratory studies in Belgium (n = 197) and Sierra Leone (n = 230), and in a subsequent clinical study in Sierra Leone (n = 635). Images of participants' irises were captured using a camera, while a survey assessed the ease of use with children.
resultsThe image capture success rate per individual was high; 86.0% of the participants had ≥ 2 successful captures. Iris scan quality and surface were similar in all age groups and in the matching population database. When including feasibility in the analysis of minors aged 3-4, sensitivity and specificity were non-inferior compared to using the biometric of a guardian. However, the quality of iris scanning in minors aged 1-4 was worse than the iris scanning reference quality in adults. A mean total usability score of 1.55 ± 0.27 was calculated; a usability threshold of 1.45 is required for routine use. Overall, this technique is feasible in minors aged 3-4, replacing the use of guardian biometrics. Additional work is ongoing to improve this technique further, striving for uniformity from the age of 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.