SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Human-centered industry 5.0 technologies for occupational risk reduction: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The transition to Industry 5.0 is transforming manufacturing through the integration of smart technologies, while simultaneously increasing the need to protect workers' health and reduce occupational risks. This systematic review synthesized cross-sectoral evidence on human-centered Industry 5.0 technologies for assessing and reducing occupational risks, with a focus on ergonomic outcomes, worker-related factors, and the conditions influencing their implementation and transferability. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and Web of Science following the PRISMA 2020 framework and predefined eligibility criteria based on PECO. Included studies were analyzed according to technology type, occupational risk addressed, ergonomic dimension, assessment method, reported outcomes, implementation conditions, and implications for occupational health and safety, yielding a total of 78 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Results: The reported results from individual studies included ergonomic assessment accuracies exceeding 95%, fatigue reductions of more than 50% in selected applications, and cycle-time reductions of up to 28.4%, along with improvements in task allocation, workload monitoring, and production efficiency. These values should not be interpreted as overall effects of Industry 5.0 technologies, given the heterogeneity of technologies, experimental designs, and assessment methods. Discussion: The evidence was limited by laboratory validation, a lack of longitudinal research, heterogeneous assessment methods, and insufficient real-world implementation in specific industrial sectors.
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.