Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38366891›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2024

Face anthropometry for filtering facepiece respirators: analysis of the association between facial dimensions and respirator fit.

Minji Yu, Linsey Griffin, William K Durfee, Susan Arnold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Minji YuCollege of Design, University of Minnesota, 1985 Buford Ave, 240 McNeal Hall, Saint Paul, MN 55108, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3997-6409
Linsey GriffinCollege of Design, University of Minnesota, 1985 Buford Ave, 240 McNeal Hall, Saint Paul, MN 55108, United States.
William K DurfeeDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 111 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States.
Susan ArnoldDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1465-3761

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEnsuring proper respirator fit for individuals remains a persistent challenge in occupational environments, yet there is limited knowledge about how respirators interact with the face to "'fit." Previous studies have attempted to understand the association between face dimensions and respirator fit using traditional head/face anthropometry not specifically tailored for respirators. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the ability of filtering facepiece respirator (FFR)-specific face anthropometry with traditional head/face anthropometry in exploring the relationship between facial dimensions and the fit of FFR.

methodsThe study utilized 3D face scans and quantitative fit factor scores from 56 participants to investigate the relationship between face anthropometry and FFR fit. Both FFR-specific and traditional anthropometric measurements were obtained through 3D anthropometric software. Intra-correlation of anthropometry was analyzed to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of FFR-specific and traditional anthropometry respectively. Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to test the usefulness of the PCA method for investigating various facial features. Logistic regression was used to develop fit association models by estimating the relationship between each face measurement set and the binary outcome of the fit test result. The prediction accuracy of the developed regression models was tested.

resultsFFR-specific face anthropometry consists of a set of measurements that can inform the detailed facial shape associated with the FFRs more effectively than traditional head/face anthropometry. While PCA may have been effective in reducing the variable dimensions for the relatively large parts of the human body such as upper and lower bodies in previous literature, PCA results of FFR-specific and traditional anthropometry were inconsistent and insufficient to describe face dimensions with complex anatomy in a small-detailed area, suggesting that facial shape should be understood through a variety of approaches including statistical methods. Logistic regression analysis results confirmed that the association models of FFR-specific face anthropometry were significant with higher prediction accuracy and had a better model's goodness of fit than those of traditional head/face anthropometry in 3 conditions inputting all measurements, all PC scores, or top 5 measurements from PCA.

conclusionsThe findings showed that the FFR fit association model enables an understanding of the detailed association between face and respirator fit and allows for the development of a system to predict respirator fit success or failure based on facial dimensions. Future research would include testing the validity of the model and FFR-specific measurement set on different respirator types, expanding the population set, and developing an integrated approach using automated and machine learning technologies to inform FFR selection for occupation workers and the general population.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureRespiratory Protective DevicesAnthropometryEquipment DesignFaceHumansface anthropometryregression analysisrespirator fitrespirator fit prediction

Identifiers

PMID38366891
PMCPMC10941723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.