Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875695›Full record

ArticleJMIR biomedical engineering2022

Accuracy of Fully Automated 3D Imaging System for Child Anthropometry in a Low-Resource Setting: Effectiveness Evaluation in Malakal, South Sudan.

Eva Leidman, Muhammad Ali Jatoi, Iris Bollemeijer, Jennifer Majer, Shannon Doocy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Eva LeidmanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4191-5931
Muhammad Ali JatoiInternational Medical Corps, Juba, .ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7246-968X
Iris BollemeijerInternational Medical Corps, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8722-3471
Jennifer MajerInternational Medical Corps, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7257-8835
Shannon DoocyDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2363-7998

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdoption of 3D imaging systems in humanitarian settings requires accuracy comparable with manual measurement notwithstanding additional constraints associated with austere settings.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of child stature and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) measurements produced by the AutoAnthro 3D imaging system (third generation) developed by Body Surface Translations Inc.

methodsA study of device accuracy was embedded within a 2-stage cluster survey at the Malakal Protection of Civilians site in South Sudan conducted between September 2021 and October 2021. All children aged 6 to 59 months within selected households were eligible. For each child, manual measurements were obtained by 2 anthropometrists following the protocol used in the 2006 World Health Organization Child Growth Standards study. Scans were then captured by a different enumerator using a Samsung Galaxy 8 phone loaded with a custom software, AutoAnthro, and an Intel RealSense 3D scanner. The scans were processed using a fully automated algorithm. A multivariate logistic regression model was fit to evaluate the adjusted odds of achieving a successful scan. The accuracy of the measurements was visually assessed using Bland-Altman plots and quantified using average bias, limits of agreement (LoAs), and the 95% precision interval for individual differences. Key informant interviews were conducted remotely with survey enumerators and Body Surface Translations Inc developers to understand challenges in beta testing, training, data acquisition and transmission.

resultsManual measurements were obtained for 539 eligible children, and scan-derived measurements were successfully processed for 234 (43.4%) of them. Caregivers of at least 10.4% (56/539) of the children refused consent for scan capture; additional scans were unsuccessfully transmitted to the server. Neither the demographic characteristics of the children (age and sex), stature, nor MUAC were associated with availability of scan-derived measurements; team was significantly associated (P<.001). The average bias of scan-derived measurements in cm was -0.5 (95% CI -2.0 to 1.0) for stature and 0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.0) for MUAC. For stature, the 95% LoA was -23.9 cm to 22.9 cm. For MUAC, the 95% LoA was -4.0 cm to 5.4 cm. All accuracy metrics varied considerably by team. The COVID-19 pandemic-related physical distancing and travel policies limited testing to validate the device algorithm and prevented developers from conducting in-person training and field oversight, negatively affecting the quality of scan capture, processing, and transmission.

conclusionsScan-derived measurements were not sufficiently accurate for the widespread adoption of the current technology. Although the software shows promise, further investments in the software algorithms are needed to address issues with scan transmission and extreme field contexts as well as to enable improved field supervision. Differences in accuracy by team provide evidence that investment in training may also improve performance.

Indexed as

3D imagingaccuracyalgorithmanthropometryarm circumferenceautomatedchild healthchild nutritionchild staturedeviceheightimaginglengthmeasurementmHealthmobile healthpediatric healthsoftware

Identifiers

PMID38875695
PMCPMC11041446

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.